 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / April 2005What it takes to be a revolutionary thinker
I had a high school student come into my office on campus one day. He had been encouraged by his mother to come visit the physics department to discuss his ideas because she thought he was brilliant. The department chair, in his infinite wisdom, sent the young man to me. For a half hour, the lad drew pictures on my chalkboard of a new unified field theory. No math, mind you, just a lot of enthusiastic description and squiggly figures and semiplausible notions. Still chewing on my sandwich, I stopped him at one point and asked him to calculate something ... anything ... with his model -- or at least set it up so that I knew in principle the calculation could be done. He looked at me in all earnestness and said, "Oh, I view myself as sort of the Einstein type. I come up with the Big Idea, and then I let everyone else work out the details." I stopped chewing, swallowed carefully, and composed my thoughts. For the next half hour, we discussed what it really meant to be a physicist, how Einstein had to study the state of the art for years before even being ready to work on a Big Idea, and what would be required of this young man on his journey to becoming a theoretical physicist, which is what he wanted more than anything else in the world. Unquestionably, he was shaken. He had no idea that it took more than just intelligence and a blinding stroke of insight. I have no qualms about having directed him this way. Any profession in the world requires an extraordinary amount of work to become tops in the field, and much of it is grinding toil. Physics is no different. Anyone who enters into such a field should not be shielded from this information, lest the moment of disillusionment come after years of wasted, dreamy ignorance. The good ones will embrace the challenge. The other aspect of this, though, was my alarm at his perception of how Einstein worked, how he did what he did. Few of the everday Einstein fans recall, for example, that the same year he was publishing his seminal papers, he was struggling to get his PhD thesis approved, and he was working at a side job because no one at the university could find money to support him. In this 100th anniversary of some of his singular accomplishments, I think it's worthwhile reminding people about how much hard work, how much formal training, and how much time spent simply learning, went into those accomplishments. PD > I had a high school student come into my office on campus one day. He > had been encouraged by his mother to come visit the physics department [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > about how much hard work, how much formal training, and how much time > spent simply learning, went into those accomplishments. Nice post Paul, I liked it. >I had a high school student come into my office on campus one day. He >had been encouraged by his mother to come visit the physics department >to discuss his ideas because she thought he was brilliant. The >department chair, in his infinite wisdom, sent the young man to me. I'm not sure what to say about this story, but feel that it should at least be acknowledged. I wonder how many people really think the greats of physics work by daydream and let others handle all that math stuff.  Signature"Is that plutonium on your gums?" "Shut up and kiss me!" -- Marge and Homer Simpson Dear Gregory L. Hansen: > In article > <1110391716.864567.112540@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > work by daydream and let others handle > all that math stuff. You can thank or blame popular press for that. It was inconvenient to have to fly a ship down to the surface (Star Trek), and yet they needed transport to be part of the drama, so the "transporter" was developed. What is impressed on the population is to come up with the ideas, and you can buy the talent to breathe life into it (ads for InvenTech as an example). When difficult and tedious *work* is to be presented to the public, it is cut short by a "fade" to the result. What isn't glamorous is the work. What is noteworthy (in that limited context) are the seed and the fruit. Not saying it is right. Just saying that is how Mom and Pop are "raised". IMHO. David A. Smith >Dear Gregory L. Hansen: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >You can thank or blame popular press for that. Bullshit. <snip> /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. Dear jmfbahciv: > In article <hvIXd.3917$uk7.457@fed1read01>, > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Bullshit. That was a substantive comment. Who raises the kids these days, the parents? David A. Smith Dear all, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> writes: >>>> I wonder how many >>>> people really think the greats of physics [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> Bullshit. >That was a substantive comment. Who raises the kids these days, >the parents? One might also suspect that kids with an interest in physics are likely to encounter some "popularized physics" at some point. This is mostly written by physicists. Are these kids getting a good impression of what doing physics is about from "popularized physics"? I think this is not the case. Perhaps we should not immediately start blaming others. Best wishes, Chris Dear Chris Dams: > Dear all, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > some "popularized physics" at some point. > This is mostly written by physicists. Please support this statement. Most popularized physics is written by non-scientists, tangentially to the path of a particular physicist (or branch of study). "Einstein's Universe", "The Dancing Wu Li Masters", etc. Hawking's works nothwithstanding... > Are these kids getting a good impression > of what doing physics is about from > "popularized physics"? I think this is not > the case. Perhaps we should not > immediately start blaming others. I agree. The blame resides at home. I am as guilty as any at NOT teaching my children the satisfaction of a job well done. I am sharpening their wits, but not teaching them to dig their own trenches. I don't find support in our culture for "trench diggers". Like the fellow at NASA that ran the failure simulations for Apollo, that recognized instrument readings from Apollo 13, and made the connection... Hard work isn't presented as paying... David A. Smith Dear David, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> writes: >> One might also suspect that kids with an >> interest in physics are likely to encounter >> some "popularized physics" at some point. >> This is mostly written by physicists. >Please support this statement. A bit of a pity that I read this question after having been in a book shop this afternoon, otherwise I could have checked out the popular physics books there. My support of this statement is just that what I remember of reading as a teenager myself, so it may not be entirely accurate. >Most popularized physics is >written by non-scientists, tangentially to the path of a >particular physicist (or branch of study). "Einstein's >Universe", "The Dancing Wu Li Masters", etc. Hawking's works >nothwithstanding... I do not think that Zukav has a degree in physics. Read the last sentence of http://www.insideedge.org/Speakers/GARY%20ZUKAV.htm . On the other hand, it would appear that a degree in physics does not guarantee good popularization. If I were to recommend either Zukavs book or Hawkings, it would certainly be Zukavs. Hawkings bestseller is a very good example of how NOT to popularize physics. Hawking is presenting established theories allongside his speculations and I don't think a person without a degree in physics can be expected to be able to notice at what point established physics goes over into Hawkings opinions. The misunderstanding about physics that this thread started with could easily be furthered by Hawkings book. I think that Heinz Pagels' book "The Cosmic Code" is very good and he is, or rather was, a physicist. Best wishes, Chris >Dear jmfbahciv: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >That was a substantive comment. Who raises the kids these days, >the parents? You were passing the buck. For a very good example of what is wrong with people's perceptions of science, take an objective look at the reaction to Harvard's President's comments over the last two months. Everybody is ignoring the real problem. This is convenient because the solution to the real problem requires work, realistic evaluations of student performance, and personal responsiblity for one's actions. I'm getting real tired of "blaming the press". They wouldn't be reporting lies if their listeners didn't eat it up as factual reporting. A very good example of this prefrenence for lies is Dan Rather's report to during the Pres. elections. The followups to his report is exactly what has caused me to sanity check news by negating it first and then applying consistency checks. The reporting has only become worse. sh.t. It seems to have even infected the weather news. There is a term for this...can't recall it...cognitive dissonance? It appears to be widespread and infecting every area. I don't understand how this is happening. I do know how to staunch it; somebody has to point and say "nonsense" or "no". I've found that it stops the downward spiral thinking in its tracks and the person's running program seems to get a reality interrupt. /BAH /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. Dear jmfbahciv: > In article <V8ZXd.3994$uk7.1519@fed1read01>, > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> In article <hvIXd.3917$uk7.457@fed1read01>, >>> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox ... >>>>You can thank or blame popular press for that. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You were passing the buck. I *was* incomplete. I should have said that it is the parent's fault. They place the TV as tutor. It is unfortunate that the parents don't know what science is either. As close as John Doe gets to science is Doctor Emmet Brown (Back to the Future). > For a very good example > of what is wrong with people's perceptions of science, [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > thinking in its tracks and the person's running > program seems to get a reality interrupt. I would choose the word "entropy"... a system tends to disorder, and the news reporting system is just another system. Funny how you ended up bashing popular press too. ;>) David A. Smith >Dear jmfbahciv: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >I *was* incomplete. I should have said that it is the parent's >fault. They place the TV as tutor. Nope. You're still parroting politicians. It has to do with leaving others make decisions and then accepting this underperformance (people are by nature lazy) as the best that can be expected. > .. It is unfortunate that the >parents don't know what science is either. As close as John Doe >gets to science is Doctor Emmet Brown (Back to the Future). Parents do science all the time. They may not know it's science; they may reach bad conclusions. Most people do science. The difference is they don't know how to write it down. >> For a very good example >> of what is wrong with people's perceptions of science, [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >I would choose the word "entropy"... a system tends to disorder, >and the news reporting system is just another system. You're just trying to be cute. This doesn't help identify the problem, let alone produce actions that counter the decline. >Funny how you ended up bashing popular press too. ;>) You did not read what I wrote..or I wrote it badly again. Why do you think Dan Rather isn't an anchor anymore? The public didn't swallow the lie. It should be a wake up call. We'll see if it worked. So far I see no evidence that the literati of our society have figured out that the rabble can think better than they can. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. Dear jmfbahciv: > In article <3QhYd.4083$uk7.4023@fed1read01>, > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Nope. You're still parroting politicians. Sorry, no. Personal experience. And parental guilt (which may be hardwired in). > It has > to do with leaving others make decisions and > then accepting this underperformance (people > are by nature lazy) as the best that can be > expected. I'm guessing you are speaking to personal responsibility. Who teaches this? Isn't this a learn by example kind of thing? >> .. It is unfortunate that the >>parents don't know what science is either. As [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > conclusions. Most people do science. The > difference is they don't know how to write it down. Accepted. ... >>> For a very good example >>> of what is wrong with people's perceptions of science, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > the problem, let alone produce actions that counter the > decline. Nature has a method of doing this. When evolutionary forces go down a dead end, the branch is terminated. I would suggest, as I did in the 1975 or so, that we get our news from the internet (which I had no name for), from sources we qualify. >>Funny how you ended up bashing popular press too. ;>) > > You did not read what I wrote..or I wrote it badly again. > Why do you think Dan Rather isn't an anchor anymore? > The public didn't swallow the lie. Because we also adhere to the concept of "saving face". The network would not tolerate a blow to its reputation, so it picked a "fall guy". Regardless of Rather's personal faults, heads needed to be seen rolling. > It should be a wake up call. > We'll see if it worked. It didn't. It won't. It can't. Because the root was not touched, only a small branch. "Network News" is (in some part) a lie. We've always known it. Yet it is usually close enough to the truth that we can still keep on keeping on. > So far I see no evidence that > the literati of our society have figured out that > the rabble can think better than they can. The rabble cannot. Individuals can. If those individuals are also charismatic (almost an oxymoron), the rabble can be led in a "good" direction. Your words can be the last in the thread. I don't see that we will agree in some points. David A. Smith >>I had a high school student come into my office on campus one day. He >>had been encouraged by his mother to come visit the physics department [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >least be acknowledged. I wonder how many people really think the greats >of physics work by daydream and let others handle all that math stuff. Just a guess, but I'd say the number equals the nose count of people who though they should have JMF's salary and fame and benefits because they happened to breathe in the same building that he did. I sure hope the kid listened and starts to learn how to work. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. > I had a high school student come into my office on campus one day. He > had been encouraged by his mother to come visit the physics department [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > information, lest the moment of disillusionment come after years of > wasted, dreamy ignorance. The good ones will embrace the challenge. The First World root password is "gimme." One is hard-pressed to find a Caucasian face in any reputable contemporary hard science graduate school. Bachelors degrees in remedial studies (high school) are a reality. Awarding a grade lower than B is cause for civil suit. > The other aspect of this, though, was my alarm at his perception of how > Einstein worked, how he did what he did. Few of the everday Einstein [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > about how much hard work, how much formal training, and how much time > spent simply learning, went into those accomplishments. Hate language, all of it. The drudgery of objective accomplishment is historic White Protestant European oppression of Peoples of Colour. What objective qualifications are necessary for a university diversity admission, e.g., University of Michigan? None at all! The USSR was dedicated to compensatory advancement of peasant stock and look how far it got (though with a bunch of whipped Jews doing all the skull sweat). The US utterly despises the Severely Gifted. Massive massively expensive social engineering efforts - Title 1, Title IX, Project Head Start - are directed toward genetic, developmental, and behavioral trash; reproductive warriors, hind gut fermenters, drug addicts, Enviro-whiner Luddites; the stupid, the pathetic, and the Officially Sad. A 170 IQ will get you Aderall and a kick in the pants; spina bifida or Trisomy 21 is a $100K/annum free ride forever. We are purchasing a future we loathe, and at heavily inflated prices. The child was a nascent social advocate. He is fully qualified to snap a whip over fungible bent backs and be richly rewarded for doing it. How can Management be held responsible when they never lift the heavy end? Management makes decisions, workers make mistakes. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf >> I had a high school student come into my office on campus one day. He >> had been encouraged by his mother to come visit the physics department [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > Enviro-whiner Luddites; the stupid, the pathetic, and the Officially > Sad. > A 170 IQ will get you Aderall and a kick in the pants; Hah.... you got that right. Concurrently they put you on a antidepressant that is highly addictive and makes it so you cannot think straight. Any bipolar induced creativity is quashed, you end up starving from lack of funding and still have to pay $200 a month to feed the addiction. > spina > bifida or Trisomy 21 is a $100K/annum free ride forever. We are > purchasing a future we loathe, and at heavily inflated prices. As they say at CU's disabilities advocation center... "Don't dis our disabilities". Ebonics is pervasive... even in the peoples republic of Boulder. *sigh* > I had a high school student come into my office on campus one day. He > had been encouraged by his mother to come visit the physics department [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > PD Thanks for sharing this. http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalGems.html We need more of this stuff. Dirk Vdm parasites of the world ! Unite!! did you or varney or Hymann or gregory hansed even contributed anything new to scince?? so come on parasites and start real work beside being blood suckers. as it is now , you belong to the garbage of scince history. farting dogs. keep well Y.Porat ------------------------------------- > parasites of the world ! Unite!! > > did you or varney or Hymann or gregory hansed even contributed anything > new > to scince?? Dylsectics of the Wolrd, Untie! > so come on parasites and start real work beside being blood suckers. > as it is now , you belong to the garbage of scince history. > farting dogs. > keep well > Y.Porat >parasites of the world ! Unite!! > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Y.Porat >------------------------------------- I don't know what Dirk has been doing, but you can find the rest of us in the literature. We're experimentalists, we measure things. Signature"Tell me, Dr. Einstein, at what time does Boston arrive at this train?" > >parasites of the world ! Unite!! > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the rest of us in the literature. We're experimentalists, > we measure things. I have enormously contributed to science. But I am enormously modest. :-) Dirk Vdm since you are a good joker and simingly not much than that here is a famou story: the say that people cam once to Sir winston churchill (sp ?) and told him : just haver a look how arrogant you are and how modest Etley (sp?) is !! (his political rival ) Churchil blantly sayed: 'Ethly has all the reasons in the world - to be modest !!!' anyway Dirk dont obfuscate my discussion with Gregory. start doing something *constructive* just sitting all day long and refuting others will not spare you some place in the common memory of scince . surely not as a revolusionair on scince... (just see the title of this thread ......) i guess your mother told you that *many times* (;-) all the best Y.Porat ------------------ so if you are so constarctive beside your constructive tennis play (no kidding sports is very important i myself is not too far from that ... even at my age) but we expect here for something more in scince so please asure of refute my claim that the scattering experiments fo rheavy elements are not electric charge dependant!! it i smore mass dependant you can sse it even in the Moseleys chart that becomes more 'problematic' while dealing wih tthe heavy elenets now since as i heard you deal with uncharged scatterings i suggested that even if you use uncharged 'bullets' you will get for heavy elements similar results as with the charged ones provided of course that some corrections or adjustments will be made for the specific system of bullets ie nutrone will be something different from say gama rays or so . and different somehoe then protons or electrons but my prediction is that it will give some *consistant law * in scattering - all laong the periodic table can you asure or refute that ?? TIA Y.Porat ----------------------------------- >so if you are so constarctive >beside your constructive tennis play (no kidding sports is very [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the scattering experiments fo rheavy elements are not electric charge >dependant!! You seem in some ways like the student that PD told us about. Why do you need me to assure you or refute you? You should have been studying scattering theory and making detailed calculations relating to your work. >it i smore mass dependant >you can sse it even in the Moseleys chart that becomes more [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >the periodic table >can you asure or refute that ?? Loosely speaking, a scattering intensity is proportional to a form factor multiplied by a structure factor. The form factor is determined by the details of the scattering interaction, the structure factor is determined only by the arrangement of scatterers. A structure factor might describe, e.g., the cubic arrangement of atoms in a crystal of salt. The sodium atoms and chlorine atoms would have different form factors determined by their charge and their arrangement of electrons. When you scatter neutrons with wavelengths on the order of an Angstrom the form factor is easy, it's a delta function. The neutron interacts so weakly by the electromagnetic interaction that for most purposes you can ignore it completely; you can ignore the electrons, you can ignore the electrical charge of the nucleus. The sodium and chlorine atoms will have different scattering strengths, but are otherwise identical for neutrons. X-rays interact primarily with the electrons of an atom. You would use the same structure factor when you scatter, but you need to use appropriate form factors, which can be looked up in reference tables. Electrons experience long-range Coulomb interactions and their form factors are again different, although the structure factor is still the same since that depends only on the arrangement of scatterers. Charged particles in general have very short ranges in matter because of the Coulomb interactions. Neutrons can pass easily through a block of lead that would stop x-rays. X-rays can pass easily through a human body that electrons cannot. Transmission electron microscopes can image only very thin samples. But whatever projectile you use, the diffraction pattern formed will have features that are related only to the wavelength of the projectile and the structure of your sample, and that will have useful information. When you study a material by scattering, it's most useful if the wavelength is about the same size as the features you're studying. If you're studying crystals you want a wavelength of a few Angstroms because that's about the distance between atoms in your sample. If you're studying nuclei you want wavelengths of about a femtometer because that's about the size of a nucleus. Then you can start talking about nuclear structure factors that are determined by the arrangement of scatterers (the quarks and gluons) within the nucleus. Signature"Outside the camp you shall have a place set aside to be used as a latrine. You shall keep a trowel in your equipment and with it, when you go outside to ease nature, you shall first dig a hole and afterward cover up your excrement." -- Deuteronomy 23:13-14 Hansen thank you for your detailed answer! you will be surprised about how much *you still have to learn (if to judge from your abstract answer ) i started to go into that issue much more in detaile with one of the members here privately ie not just abstarct handwaving but realy in detailes) now you will be surprised about how much of even if you study the *existing exoerimental knnowledge- but if you look on it from a different angle of look that is not paradigma biased you get completely different conclusions you will realise how much holes in the paradigma are and how those holes are sweaped under the carpet just because 'it does nort fit the paradigma' so i am going to open a new thread that will be called 'scattering experiemnts' in which we can reexamine experimental data in a revisionary way. and now about your bottom literaturic paragraph quote (that i personally dont like just in case you directed it to someone else except yourself!!) if you include youself in that 'outof the camp ' category' than it is all right yet still tastless!! all th ebest Y.Porat ------------------------------------------- >Hansen >thank you for your detailed answer! >you will be surprised about how much *you still have to learn >(if to judge from your abstract answer ) Not really. I haven't done much detailed work on scattering, and I haven't studied atomic physics to any degree. That may or may not start to change this summer. >i started to go into that issue much more in detaile with one of the >members here [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >different >angle of look that is not paradigma biased There's no such thing as a perspective that is not paradigm biased. Although it might be biased by a different paradigm. >you get completely different conclusions >you will realise how much holes in the paradigma are >and how those holes are sweaped under the carpet just because >'it does nort fit the paradigma' Somehow I doubt this characterization is really very accurate. >so > i am going to open a new thread that will be called [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >than it is all right >yet still tastless!! My taglines are selected randomly from a list. Sometimes they're appropriate to a discussion, sometimes inappropriate, I usually don't bother to check before I send a message off. Signature"A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803. lets take your last quote from J.Black one day you will be surprised about how much of the existing scattering *interpretations* di dexactly what Black di dnt recoment to do !!! sice you are in that bussiness of scattering you must be aware about the vast scope of 'interpretations' ([possible interpretations'since as you know you dont get the exact results * directly* is is always not just interpretations but even * asery of interpretations * sometimes built as a pile' of interpretations ie one on top of the other iow just in case it wil turn out that one of the basic assumptions was wrong - th ewhole card building' will collaps! and there is a lot of 'fiddling in' of those interpretations just a littl eexamples in one of the scattering data that i got (from my good private discusser) was about the element Gold that 'refused to fit in th eline !!! so they suggested that the nucleids of gold are just denser by 20 percent compared to its neighbours !! while we have othwer experiemntal; data that contradict such a posibility!! let me make it shorter my revolutionary 'interpretation for heavey lelemnt scattering will be that it has much morer to do with growing mass!! rather with growing electric charge!! (especially while the scattering 'bullets are of the big accelarators ie much more energy than the electron bindng energy!) all th ebest Y.Porat ---------------------- > I had a high school student come into my office on campus one day. He > had been encouraged by his mother to come visit the physics department [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > PD ... and then there's Srinivasa Ramanujan: http://www.usna.edu/Users/math/meh/ramanujan.html > > I had a high school student come into my office on campus one day. He > > had been encouraged by his mother to come visit the physics department [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > ... and then there's Srinivasa Ramanujan: > http://www.usna.edu/Users/math/meh/ramanujan.html Thanks for the complement of starting a new thread just to put me down although I 'm not sure its me as it could be anybody like me that tries to think for themselves but thanks anyway LOL goto new impoved facts v012 but only if you are interested but thank for the memory and I wont post to your threads again. My farther was a teacher so I know how you must feel. Three frames may be needed. > > > I had a high school student come into my office on campus one day. He > > > had been encouraged by his mother to come visit the physics department [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > > Thanks for the complement of starting a new thread just to put me down Are you suggesting you are mathematically in the same class as Ramanujan? Your posts indicate otherwise. > although I 'm not sure its me as it could be anybody like me that tries to > think for themselves but thanks anyway You confuse uninformed misunderstanding with thinking for yourself. Bill > LOL goto new impoved facts v012 but only if you are interested but thank for > the memory and I wont post to your threads again. My farther was a teacher > so I know how you must feel. Three frames may be needed. <SNIP> > ... and then there's Srinivasa Ramanujan: > http://www.usna.edu/Users/math/meh/ramanujan.html What about him? Read his bio. He worked hard, and that is the inescapable theme behind PD's post. > <SNIP> > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > He worked hard, and that is the inescapable theme behind PD's post. Yes indeed - he worked very hard. And when his work was examined by Hardy and Littlewood it was immediately recognized as the work of genius. True genius is very difficult to suppress - however crank spew is usually easy to spot. And although Einstein early work had a mixed initial reception greats like Plank immediatly recognized he was a master physicist. Thanks Bill > <SNIP> > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > He worked hard, and that is the inescapable theme behind PD's post. He was a "big ideas" person who left the details to others. He could almost never prove his theorems or offer and corroborating detail, but they were almost always (those for which the truth could be ascertained either way) true. While he worked hard, his formal education was relatively thin. I see him as both confirming (by having to work hard) and contradicting (by being ready for big ideas after not mastering the state of the art; i.e. he started his brilliant contributions after only reading what amounts to a dictionary of mathematical formulae) PD's post at once. > > <SNIP> > > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > reading what amounts to a dictionary of mathematical formulae) PD's post > at once. Hmmmmm. I see your point and agree that Ramanujan's standards of mathematical rigor were not the best. But many authors have commented that Einstein's standards of rigor in physical analysis was often also suspect - eg Krietchmans valid criticisms of the principle of general covariance. It has been commented that Newton and Einstein were like sleep walkers - intuitively knowing where they wanted to go but not able to fully elucidate it. My readings of the life of Ramanujan suggests he was also a sleepwalker. I suspect many other great mathematicians and physics were also sleepwalkers eg I suspect Feynman was one as well. It has often been commented Feynman was no ordinary genius - he was a magician - I think Einstein and Ramanujan were magicians as well. Thanks Bill > > > <SNIP> > > > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > commented Feynman was no ordinary genius - he was a magician - I think > Einstein and Ramanujan were magicians as well. Feynman exercised magic when he knew where he wanted to go and then plotted the math to get there. Heisenberg and Dirac and Teller (yes, Teller) did exactly the same thing. Ed Witten does the same thing. Lee Smolin does the same thing. But recall the time that Feynman spent in strip clubs was (famously) spent *calculating*. > Thanks > Bill > > > > <SNIP> > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Teller) did exactly the same thing. Ed Witten does the same thing. Lee > Smolin does the same thing. Yes - Feynman, Einstein and Newton were not the only magicians and sleepwalkers. Although I do not know much of Teller I know something of Dirac and Heisenberg - and they were unquestionably sleepwalking magicians as well. I have no bout Witten is also a sleepwalking magician - by repute he spends a lot of his time gazing and doing horrendous calculations in his head. > But recall the time that Feynman spent in strip clubs was (famously) > spent *calculating*. Feynmans whole life seems to be one of confirming the image of the playful scallywag. At Princeton he had everyone (except Wheeler who knew Einstein) convinced he was in discussions with Einstein about important discoveries. He wished he never got a Phd so he could say - hey buddy even I know that and I do not have a Phd. He would spend hours honing the supposed 'offhand' remarks that made him famous. Again PD thanks for the excellent posts on this matter. Bill > > Thanks > > Bill >> I had a high school student come into my office on campus one day. He >> had been encouraged by his mother to come visit the physics department [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >.... and then there's Srinivasa Ramanujan: >http://www.usna.edu/Users/math/meh/ramanujan.html If this guy had never learned all about the way to write math on paper, nobody would ever benefit from his brilliance. At some point in time, people have to learn how to put the stuff on paper in a form that can be interpreted by others. If they don't then the idea will not survive. In the olden days, people passed their knowledge by word of mouth. All of this knowledge died in the plagues and purges. It takes a lot of hard work just learning the basic ABCs of math, let alone science. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. > I had a high school student come into my office on campus one day. He > had been encouraged by his mother to come visit the physics department > to discuss his ideas because she thought he was brilliant. The > department chair, in his infinite wisdom, sent the young man to me. >For a half hour, the lad drew pictures on my chalkboard of a new >unified field theory. No math, mind you, just a lot of enthusiastic >description and squiggly figures and semiplausible notions <Interesting post snipped to save B/W> What happened to him? Hope he came back with the details! > I had a high school student come into my office on campus one day. He > had been encouraged by his mother to come visit the physics department [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > PD I want to thank PD for an excellent post. As Gleick writes regarding Feynman http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Feynman.html: 'Feynman seemed to possess a frightening ease with the substance behind the equations, like Einstein at the same age, like the Soviet physicist Lev Landau - but few others.' It is this ease with what the equations are saying that is required to make progress in physics - and the work needed to gain that ease is, even for the greats like Einstein, Feynman and Landau a long and difficult journey. Einstein himself remarked that most of his ideas amounted to nothing - only occasionally would it result in progress. Pias in Inward Bound comments it is the ability to ask the right question - but to formulate the right question a lot of hard work and the following of blind alleys needs to have occurred. Thanks Bill. >I want to thank PD for an excellent post. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >question a lot of hard work and the following of blind alleys needs to have >occurred. There is something a little bit depressing hidden in this; not everyone can be an Einstein or a Feynman, no matter how hard they try. Just as few people can be a Michael Jordon even if they work day and night at it. Some people are decent athletes in spite of themselves; the couch potato that bends down and picks up 350 pounds on his first deadlift, or the guy riding a unicycle 20 minutes after he first lays hands on it. And some people become decent athletes through hard work and the love of the game. The pros are the ones that would have been good in spite of themselves, but they bust their a.ses as hard as any starry eyed wannabe can imagine. And an Einstein or a Feynman would have excelled at anything they tried to do; they happened to like physics and they busted their a.ses doing it. Hard work and inspiring platitudes alone can only make you good, not great. Signature"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible >>I want to thank PD for an excellent post. >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Hard work and inspiring platitudes alone can only make you good, not > great. In my opinion one should not care so much. If the subject alone isn't enough to spur one on then why bother? Is it clear Einstein gave a damn what people thought? My bet is he just wanted to know. > There is something a little bit depressing hidden in this; not everyone > can be an Einstein or a Feynman, no matter how hard they try. True, but I think most employers would rather have 10 people that tried than 10 who didn't bother. How many of you would have been brave enough to do what this kid did? >> There is something a little bit depressing hidden in this; not everyone >> can be an Einstein or a Feynman, no matter how hard they try. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How many of you would have been brave enough to do what this kid did? You mean ignorant and arrogant? > >I want to thank PD for an excellent post. > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > There is something a little bit depressing hidden in this; not everyone > can be an Einstein or a Feynman, no matter how hard they try. True. But anyone with an interest can try and ensure they make a genuine effort. To me that is one of the points PD was making. If you are actually interested in physics (or math or whatever) then one should make a genuine effort - and it will require - well effort - no matter how gifted you are. > Just as few > people can be a Michael Jordon even if they work day and night at it. True. But anyone interested in playing basketball can learn to do it to the best of their ability. I remember an interview with Nick Bollettieri the famous tennis coach. He had hundreds of hopefuls being coached - of course only a few would actually make it as a player. When asked why bother he said at the end of the day he will try an make you the best tennis player he can. And if that is not what you want then you should leave ASAP. Some people just like playing tennis enough to want to do as good at it as they can. The same with physics. > Some people are decent athletes in spite of themselves; the couch potato > that bends down and picks up 350 pounds on his first deadlift, or the guy > riding a unicycle 20 minutes after he first lays hands on it. And some > people become decent athletes through hard work and the love of the game. Take two athletes of the same ability - coach one well and give no coaching to the other - the coached one will always be better. I love table tennis but am an uncoordinated non athlete. However my table tennis improved out of site with coaching and I gained a lot of fun from it. One of the things I liked was these guys that said - this uncoordinated couch potato can never play table tennis and I would whip his a.s - it was great fun thrashing them. I did it to one guy who insisted on playing me every day for six months. He was a natural athlete but hated that I beat him. With six month of practice he eventually was able to consistently beat me. He learnt a lesson - it is not the most gifted that succeeds - it is the one willing to put in the most effort. The ones that do really well are those that are gifted and work at it. > The pros are the ones that would have been good in spite of themselves, > but they bust their a.ses as hard as any starry eyed wannabe can imagine. Because if they did not the other gifted ones would leave them behind. > And an Einstein or a Feynman would have excelled at anything they tried to > do; they happened to like physics and they busted their a.ses doing it. > Hard work and inspiring platitudes alone can only make you good, not > great. True. But without hard work you would be neither. Thanks Bill > > I had a high school student come into my office on campus one day. He > > had been encouraged by his mother to come visit the physics department [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > As Gleick writes regarding Feynman http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Feynman.html: > 'Feynman seemed to possess a frightening ease with the substance behind the > equations, like Einstein at the same age, like the Soviet physicist Lev > Landau - but few others.' Feynmann is hardly frightening or difficult. Since the idiot was the first physicist to explode an atomic bomb. But unfortunately like all physicists, when it comes to space shuttles, we had to send back moron-ville in Los Angelos with the film-at-eleven subgenuis' Carl Reiner fan club of the Big Fart. > > > I had a high school student come into my office on campus one day. > He [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > Since the idiot was the first physicist to > explode an atomic bomb. He was not. He returned just in time to see it form being at the death bed of his wife. This was a terrible time for Feynman that stayed with him for the rest of his life. > But unfortunately like all physicists, > when it comes to space shuttles, we > had to send back moron-ville in > Los Angelos with the film-at-eleven > subgenuis' Carl Reiner fan club > of the Big Fart. If they wanted morons then they needed look know further than idiots like you. Bill >I had a high school student come into my office on campus one day. He >had been encouraged by his mother to come visit the physics department [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >about how much hard work, how much formal training, and how much time >spent simply learning, went into those accomplishments. Worthwhile, for sure. Only, who'll do it? The "zero goal education", as Al calls it? The media, who generally know nothing about it either? Fact is, if you'll ask either well educated people, most of tehm won't have the faintest idea of what was it that Einstein did, they'll just mumbel something to the effect that he "revolutionized physics". If you'll press for more details you'll get something like "he proved that everything is relative":-) And that would be the end of it. The image the general public has, regarding scientific progress (to the extent that the general public cares at all) is: 1) The scientist sits and ponders. 2) The scientist has a "Eureka" moment and all becomes clear. 3) The scientist announces Idea to other scientists. 4) Everybody immediately recognizes Idea as Great. 5) Closing credits roll. For added drama step (4) may be replaced by "Scientist is being derided by his peers, has to fight for his Idea till eventually Truth prevails". this can be further elaborated on, of course:-) Well, nevermind. But, thank you for posting the above. this was worthwhile. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" | I had a high school student come into my office on campus one day. He | had been encouraged by his mother to come visit the physics department [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] | | PD Yep, very good post. Some young punks just need a good slappin' around even if only verbally. ;-) Even being an electronic systems engineer and head of an engineering dept., I spend a good deal of my free time learning new things all the time. It never stops if you want to be one of the best in your field of expertice. FrediFizzx > | I had a high school student come into my office on campus one day. He <SNIP> > Yep, very good post. Some young punks just need a good slappin' around > even if only verbally. ;-) Even being an electronic systems engineer Oh brother. >> | I had a high school student come into my office on campus one day. He ><SNIP> >> Yep, very good post. Some young punks just need a good slappin' around >> even if only verbally. ;-) Even being an electronic systems engineer > >Oh brother. heh! Don't dis us engineers...until we try to tell you how to do your job ;-). /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. > I had a high school student come into my office on campus one day. He > had been encouraged by his mother to come visit the physics department [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > PD Logic is wasted on those who are unversed in logical principles. Those who are prone to consider flights of fancy are those who are unversed in logical principles. Complete the syllogism. Einstein's abilities transcended education. His was the gift of logical abstraction. Confucius says: The ability to sing cannot be learned, but like the cricket among the other insects; some can and some can't. Your student probably grew up to be Donald Shead. Richard Perry > Einstein's abilities transcended education. His was the gift of > logical abstraction. Confucius says: The ability to sing cannot be > learned, but like the cricket among the other insects; some can and > some can't. The way I've heard Einstein's abilities described were that he had an amazingly good physical intuition. He didn't "transcend education" but his education and interests were in physical, rather than mathematical areas. The kinds of abstraction that mathematics represents were not really in his skill set. He wasn't a brilliantly insightful mathematician, but he certainly was a competent one. He didn't make brilliant new developments in differential geometry but he certainly learned it well enough to develop his insights in GR into a mathematical theory. - Randy >>Einstein's abilities transcended education. His was the gift of >>logical abstraction. Confucius says: The ability to sing cannot be [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > - Randy I disagree. Einstein was the same sort of intellect as Newton. Now recall that Newton never learned Calculus, think about that. Socrates made a very convincing argument about geometric principles being inherently understood, but I'm sure that he erred in thinking that this was a universal trait. Having a similar grasp of the abstract concepts before even having been exposed to them in literature, I understand the phenomenon well. Perhaps you aren't a singer? :) Richard Perry here is one of 'old catto's sayings: in order to be a good pioneering scientist you must * always *osciate*- between your superiority complex and your inferiodity complex! all the best Y.Porat ---------------------------- > I had a high school student come into my office on campus one day. He > had been encouraged by his mother to come visit the physics department [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > PD Interesting post. But why did you squash him like that? Here a teenage kid who is interested in something comes to see an expert in the field, on the sound advice of mom who wants to see her son go to university, and instead of encouraging his interest you explain "reality." He would have learned eventually, everyone does in their own way. Now, is he actually going to apply to a physics program? Go to university at all? Sure he was being idealistic and naive, he's only a kid. You had the chance to sell him on a physics degree, or at least encourage him to go to university, and to me it sounds like you blew it. . ... >> The other aspect of this, though, was my alarm at his perception of how >> Einstein worked, how he did what he did. Few of the everday Einstein [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Interesting post. But why did you squash him like that? Eh? What do you mean "squash"? Are you from the "self-esteem first" school of education? >Here a teenage kid who is interested in something comes to see an >expert in the field, on the sound advice of mom who wants to see her >son go to university, and instead of encouraging his interest you >explain "reality." Yes. That's the honest thing to do. He would have learned eventually, everyone does in >their own way. >Now, is he actually going to apply to a physics program? Go to >university at all? Sure he was being idealistic and naive, he's only >a kid. You had the chance to sell him on a physics degree, or at least >encourage him to go to university, and to me it sounds like you blew >it. It is utterly dishonest to "sell somebody on a physics degree" by presenting him a misleading picture, glossing over the difficulties and making him think that his capabilities are different than they really are. What science needs are those who want to do it even though they realize it is hard, not those who were duped into thinking that it is easy. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" > ... > >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Eh? What do you mean "squash"? Are you from the "self-esteem first" > school of education? > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, > meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" Amen. I don't do what I do because it's easy for me. I don't do what I do because I'm particularly good at it. I certainly don't do it because it's fun. I do it because I can't help doing it, because I stand in the shower thinking about it, because no matter how frustrating it is, or how laborious the effort, or how slow the progress, or how small the gain, it still seizes me. PD >> In article <f57171c7.0503101419.3cc7c713@posting.google.com>, >zj_45@hotmail.com (Zach) writes: [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] >how laborious the effort, or how slow the progress, or how small the >gain, it still seizes me. Exactly! And that's why the talk about "recruiting future physicists" is just so much gibberish. I've seen your response and I agree, physicists do not recruit future physicists, they just train them. Future physicists are self recruited. They come in because they would've been muiserable doing anything else. If anybody is drawn in with promises of high pay and social status, he'll leave upon recognizing that, in general, physics offers neither. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" > >> In article <f57171c7.0503101419.3cc7c713@posting.google.com>, > >zj_45@hotmail.com (Zach) writes: [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > with promises of high pay and social status, he'll leave upon > recognizing that, in general, physics offers neither. Well said by both Mati and PD. I do not study physics because I am good at it (we have tons of people on sci.physics.relativity who are much better). I study it because it grabs me - specifically how these sometimes innocuous premises like the POR has all these startling consequences. Then there is the magic of QM - it is counterintuitive but lies at the foundation of the PLA and many other things. Thanks Bill > Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, > meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" surely youwill not be a revolusionary scientist just keep on singing and smiling in your shower but just make sure that th esongs you sing there are always the same and everybody sings and you will stay happy (and healthy!) fo r the rest of your life but ps dont you dare to be a good teacher of young students!!! because we have enough parrots in the zoo !! Y.Porat -------------------------- Dear Y. Porat: > surely youwill not be a revolusionary scientist > just keep on singing and smiling in your shower [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ps dont you dare to be a good teacher of young students!!! > because we have enough parrots in the zoo !! I guess you know who has the parrot now, since you keep bringing it with you. David A. Smith Et tu david ???? you know nothing about my revolutionary findings just have alook at my site and tell me if you have something to refute it (that site is just an abstarct of my book!!) Y.Porat ------------------------------ Dear Y.Porat: > Et tu david ???? No one else brings their pets here! > you know nothing about my revolutionary findings We've talked. We often "agree to disagree". I don't think *I* will find "revolution" there. Maybe someone else will. > just have alook at my site and tell me if you have > something to refute it (that site is just an abstarct > of my book!!) I've been to your site, when you provided the link before. I couldn't decipher "where to go". So I treat it as a work of art that "I don't get", and move on to the next. David A. Smith Mr Smith i noticed just today that you welcomed Michel varney back to this ng ie 'birds of a feather flock together' so fankly speaking the second i saw it some insight flashed to me that you are not my 'cup of tea ' at all. so please from now on get of my back i have no spare time (and nurves) for mumblers hand wavers etc etc ok? Y.Porat ----------------------------------- Dear Y.Porat: ... > so please from now on > get of my back > i have no spare time (and nurves) > for mumblers hand wavers etc etc > ok? OK. I'd rather learn, then play a "name game" anyway. Goodbye. <plonk> David A. Smith [snip] > Interesting post. But why did you squash him like that? If squashing were the order of the day, why would PD "compose his thoughts" and proceed to discuss the matter "for the next half hour"? Note: *discuss*, not tell off. What better way to show respect to a smart kid? > Here a teenage kid who is interested in something comes to see an > expert in the field, on the sound advice of mom who wants to see her > son go to university, and instead of encouraging his interest you > explain "reality." He would have learned eventually, everyone does in > their own way. I disagree -- only the successful ones eventually learn. A lot of others wash out. Your James Harrises and your George Hammonds, for instance. > Now, is he actually going to apply to a physics program? Go to > university at all? You are overreacting; we don't know much about how the interview went except that the kid was "shaken". But who wouldn't be? If the kid is cut out for physics, he will be back. And more likely to succeed because of this experience. Sure he was being idealistic and naive, he's only > a kid. You had the chance to sell him on a physics degree, or at least > encourage him to go to university, and to me it sounds like you blew > it. I'd say you can't make that conclusion at all. Do you think that the desirability of a university degree never came up during that 30 minute discussion? I am guessing the opposite. russ...@mdli.com wrote: > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > the desirability of a university degree never came up during that > 30 minute discussion? I am guessing the opposite. Fine, respect maybe, can't make that conclusion, fine. But my point is the human side of those types of interpersonal interactions should not be ignored. Not that I care, but how are the enrollment numbers for North American university physics programs in the last few years? And, really, what is the point in being a revolutionary thinker anyway? Dear zj_45: > russ...@mdli.com wrote: ... >> > Sure he was being idealistic and naive, >> > he's only a kid. You had the chance to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > side of those types of interpersonal > interactions should not be ignored. They were not. The instructor listened, then instructed. He got more one-on-one time than I did from all but about two of my professors, in all my years at school. > Not that I care, but how are the enrollment > numbers for North American university > physics programs in the last few years? Up. The better question is how many physics jobs are waiting for them? And in what country? > And, really, what is the point in being > a revolutionary thinker anyway? We have covered more of the planet than "same old" thinkers can maintain. Stagnancy is death. Nature is already tooling up to use us as a food source. David A. Smith > russ...@mdli.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > And, really, what is the point in being a revolutionary thinker anyway? There is no point, it's an involuntary sort of thing :) Richard Perry PD-- My guess is that your young stud (and mom) thought someone at the university might offer a scholarship--(or a job as a janitor working with Matt Damen). Anyway, he gets to the Dept head (how did that happen?) who ships him down the hall to a guy (PD) eating a bag lunch. PD tells the kid that physics is a lot of work--and the kid's thinking, for PD maybe...but the stud can only see himself in the role of the Dept head--big office, reserved parking space, and young staffers down the hall to call on when work needs to be done. What do you think? :-) > PD-- > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What do you think? :-) I think the kid maybe had the calling (I wasn't there so I'm only relying upon his expressed zeal in drawing this conclusion), but maybe he was a bit detached from reality, a bit too detached. What would you do when confronted with someone with their head up their a.s? I'd probably give them a dose of reality. Whatever impression was made on the kid, it doesn't matter, the right thing was done. Richard Perry > > I had a high school student come into my office on campus one day. He > > had been encouraged by his mother to come visit the physics department [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > . First of all, I was gentler than perhaps I led you to believe. Nevertheless, he was shocked. Naivety becomes costly when you're paying a few hundred bucks per credit hour. Secondly, he did not come to me interested and curious about something. He came to me with "answers" that he thought might be of use to me. Third, there's a fine line between encouraging someone and deluding them, or conversely between encouraging someone and letting them know they're going down the wrong path. I had one doctoral student who was convinced she was no good and that people would sooner or later find out what a fraud she was; I worked hard to make her realize that she was indeed talented and to get lost in the problem and not worry about things like that. I also had a masters student who was tanking miserably, and eventually I had to work hard to get her to realize that she would make the rest of her life miserable if she continued to pursue physics instead of something potentially more rewarding. Both were tough decisions, and in retrospect I have little doubt both were the right ones. Fourth, it's not really a physicist's job to recruit physicists, it's more to train them. Part of training them is to show them what it's really like, doing the work, slogging through the best and the worst of it. This is why I encourage every undergraduate I meet to take an internship in the area of their major. It'll be grunt work, and for little to no pay, but if you still want to do the work after that, then you *know* you're destined to it. PD >Nevertheless, he was shocked. Naivety becomes costly when you're paying >a few hundred bucks per credit hour. > >Secondly, he did not come to me interested and curious about something. >He came to me with "answers" that he thought might be of use to me. Sounds like just another day on sci.physics. Signature"Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain so at last we can conclude that you are a revolutionary thinker and you are a model for it !! btw i till wait to see your revolutionaty achievments to just ify your big talking under this thread! Y.Porat ------------------------ >> The other aspect of this, though, was my alarm at his perception of how >> Einstein worked, how he did what he did. Few of the everday Einstein [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >encourage him to go to university, and to me it sounds like you blew >it. I've lost patience with the unexamined assumption that we must work to swell the ranks of the physics programs. Surely that's a good thing for the professors who need a strong department, not to mention grad students and post docs to do their work. But the employment picture for physicists looks less like that painted by the American Physical Society and more like that painted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And the new federal budget will do nothing to change that. Declining enrollment in physics programs is market forces doing what they're supposed to do. If the kid doesn't make it into physics on his own, he'd be better off somewhere else. But the converse is not necessarily true. Signature"You're not as dumb as you look. Or sound. Or our best testing indicates." -- Monty Burns to Homer Simpson > >> The other aspect of this, though, was my alarm at his perception of how > >> Einstein worked, how he did what he did. Few of the everday Einstein [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > If the kid doesn't make it into physics on his own, he'd be better off > somewhere else. But the converse is not necessarily true. I was waiting for you to bring your views on this. Of course, I actually do agree with what you're saying. People shouldn't be going into physics because they've been fed stories of high paying jobs, rainbow roads to tenure, and inevitable Nobel prizes. Most people can't. They lose their intelligence. Kids are more intelligent before school. Don't knock kids. Just take a look at the brainwashing machines we call universities. It just shows how great Einstein was to make it through school and retain his intelligence i.e. sense of values. To all you people who are puffed up on Einstein's ideas - Go to hell. You're nobody. God is a fact and Einstein knew it. "Einstein was a true believer." Michael Savage Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls -- The Brain is wider than the Sky For put them side by side The one the other will contain With ease and you beside The Brain is deeper than the sea For hold them Blue to Blue The one the other will absorb As Sponges Buckets do The Brain is just the weight of God For Heft them Pound for Pound And they will differ if they do As Syllable from Sound -- Emily Dickinson SignatureAhmed Ouahi, Architect Best Regards! > Most people can't. They lose their intelligence. > Kids are more intelligent before school. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls -- >The Brain is wider than the Sky You got a BIG problem! The Brain is wider than the Sky For put them side by side The one the other will contain With ease and you beside The Brain is deeper than the sea For hold them Blue to Blue The one the other will absorb As Sponges Buckets do The Brain is just the weight of God For Heft them Pound for Pound And they will differ if they do As Syllable from Sound -- Emily D |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message