Comments on: Bad Physics Joke Explained, Part I

By: A Promising Sign? - Asymptotia

A Promising Sign? - Asymptotia — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 15:32:38 +0000

[...] (*For the uninitiated, the Higgs particle is one of the things physicists will search for at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in Geneva, in an effort to understand better the world of elementary particles. Remarkably, they (or something like them) impart mass to the particles that we observe making up everything else. Models that involve a symmetry of nature called “supersymmetry” call for at least a pair of Higgs particles. Finding supersymmetry (which combines various particles with other particles, making them “superpartners”) would be simply marvellous, for lots of technical and aesthetic reasons. This explains, I hope, my amusement at the sign. [Note that the LHC is not really designed to study supersymmetry extensively. If it sees signs of this phenomenon, we’d have to wait for a new machine (like the International Linear Collider (ILC)) to be built.] Other particles implied by the existence of supersymmetry are candidates for the huge amount of missing matter called “Dark Matter” in our Universe. This, I hope, explains my other choice of names above. Once again, my explanation is longer than the actual bit of humour itself. Nothing wrong with that.) [...]

By: New IPod Shuffle more Nano than Nano - Asymptotia

New IPod Shuffle more Nano than Nano - Asymptotia — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 03:06:21 +0000

[...] Remember a year ago, the launch of the ipod nano that caught my eye? Even led to a long physics joke explanation.. [...]

By: Bad Physics Jokes | Cosmic Variance

Bad Physics Jokes | Cosmic Variance — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 03:41:08 +0000

[...] Sorry about that joke (I won’t explain it….you had to be there and it is sort of an in-joke). It just occured to me mid-sentence. I can’t stop these things. (By the way, I saw somewhere on the web that my ipod Planck joke, an excellent opportunity to explain a bit about the physics of the holographic principle, was called the “nerdiest joke ever”…..I’m actually secretly very pleased about that. You won’t tell, will you?) [...]

By: Three Proposals of Marriage | Cosmic Variance

Three Proposals of Marriage | Cosmic Variance — Fri, 04 Nov 2005 01:50:18 +0000

[...] Sure enough, as had been leaked, there was an announcement of a new Nanoscience thing. This means that there will be a focus on attracting new research effort, faculty, and facilities under this heading, (and there is always the worry that you won’t be able to do anything unless it fits under that umbrella, so everybody is paying attention for that reason too). So he spoke about that for a while, and I was standing there thinking whether I could argue that Planck scale physics is really a sort of ultra-Nanoscience…. (recall my ipod Planck joke, by the way, and its explanation). [...]

By: Plato

Plato — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:33:03 +0000

TM - Iâ€™ll do something on ADS/CFT some time soon.

I look forward to this as well.

Anyway I wanted to move this forward a bit.

Now in jest surely the idea can be moved forward a bit for consideration here on where Clifford is taking us.

By: Clifford

Clifford — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 07:07:53 +0000

Thanks Quantoken. You never disappoint. No idea what you’re talking about, and certainly no time or interest in playing silly counting games, so I’ll just remain a disgraceful dimwit. This disgraceful and disappointing dimwitted behaviour must be repellant to you. Best not to subject yourself to this spectacle any longer.

Bye!

-cvj

[update: By the way, someone more polite and mature pointed out specifically a typo in the Planck mass estimate I gave. Thanks erc! Quantoken: look and learn how to be a pleasant part of a community.]

By: Quantoken

Quantoken — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 06:59:36 +0000

Clifford:

Why do you have to insult your own intelligence like that? I do not have high hope of finding much intelligence in most string theorist but I thought at least you should be a little bit more intelligent than an average person on the street.

I already said \”not that one\” to Steve, and you continue to talk about the Planck length. Let me say it again, not that one. And I already said you are wrong by 3 orders of magnitude, you should know that centimeter and meter differ by two orders of magnitude, not three.

Making a numerical error is NO big deal. But unable to find where the error is, EVEN AFTER I point it out, that is really disgraceful. If you can\’t figure out where you got it wrong, at least you could keep your silence and save a little bit embarrassment. What a disgrace, \”dimwits\”.

Now, what is the last letter of the word \”Planck\”? Count 20 lines in reverse order and find that letter after the word Planck, that\’s where you got it wrong

Quantoken

By: Tom Renbarger

Tom Renbarger — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 03:08:49 +0000

If the floor is open to requests for future topics, I’d love to see something about strangelets. Someone asked me about them and at the time, all I knew about them is that they have been put forward as a dark matter candidate.

Having just begun reading up on the topic, I can’t believe that anyone would have the nerve to propose these things as dark matter. If they are only formed in the cores of the densest neutron stars, there’s no way they can be the sole constituent of dark matter — there just isn’t enough mass in neutron stars to crank out the necessary amount of strange matter.

This objection could be gotten around by positing a large quantity of primordial strangelets that formed in the early universe, but there’s an additional problem. Stranglets, being made of quarks, should be baryons, whereas dark matter is supposed to be non-baryonic. What gives?

I’d love either a confirmation of or correction to my line of reasoning given above. Actually it wouldn’t necessarily need its own blog entry, a few sentences in the comments would probably do.

Thanks for “listening,”

Tom

By: Clifford

Clifford — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:30:20 +0000

and no one was able to point it out or correct it.. I thought you should know better.

Quantoken, where would we be without your brilliance, which you generously hide under a bushel in every one of your polite comments, eh? As far as I can see, the only place I give an actual number, it is correct. There are some who insist on quoting the Planck scale in centimeters, which is comonly written everywhere in all the popular books (10^(-33) or so), but I don’t understand why people do that given that we use meters everywhere else in science, so I use meters (I’m just that kind a’ guy).

So perhaps that is the source of your confusion? Maybe not, since you are never wrong. So, if you can see a place where there is an error, do point it out to us dimwits. We’ll all be so grateful.

Thanks so much.

-cvj

By: Quantoken

Quantoken — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 00:56:30 +0000

Steve:

Not that one. Go figure where he got it wrong.

Quantoken

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 23:27:31 +0000

“you got the Planck scale wrong by 3 orders of magnitude”

What are you on about?? His derivation and value of the Planck scale are correct. You could write
L_{p}=1.616 x 10^{-35}m, but L_{p}=1.6 x 10 ^{-35}m is good enough.

By: Quantoken

Quantoken — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:54:17 +0000

Clifford:
You got the Planck scale wrong by three order of magnitude, and no one was able to point it out or correct it, so far. I thought you should know better.

By: Clifford

Clifford — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:48:12 +0000

Ed, Others:- if you don’t ask, how can I ever know that you want to know. In future, ask. I can’t promise to answer everything in loving detail, but part of what I’m doing here is talking to the non-experts. This is maybe just as important (on this blog) as having technical discussions with those alredy in the know. The other reason it makes sense to ask is because there are others in the know who are lurking who will from time to time point out useful things, references, explanations, etc. So we all benefit from people asking “Hold on, what on earth is so-and-so that you’re talking about?”.

-cvj

By: Ed Hessler

Ed Hessler — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:40:31 +0000

Thanks TM for asking about anti-diSitter space and CFT. I’ve not dared ask for I know it is “out there,” too far for me but I’d love to read an explanation for the nearly uninformed,and hear some comments on importance, research, where it fits in current theoretical frameworks, etc. And I look forward, cvj, to some insights as well as from respondents. So thanks for agreeing to do this.

Now, will someone please tell me: Did Lisa Randall really acknowledge Lubos Motl in her book (not that she shouldn’t have but I’m just not sure). Of course, I could look but I haven’t seen it in my local bookshop yet.

By: Plato

Plato — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:04:18 +0000

Apparently alpha(”a” in Ipodmanship) and omega (”w” in Ipodawltry) notations did not work. Oh well.

By: Plato

Plato — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:00:05 +0000

Gerard t’ Hooft:No ‘Quantum Computer‘ will ever be able to out perform a ’scaled up classical computer.‘

Thanks Clifford on correction of Ipodmanship. I think this clarifies the “length” with which Ipodawltry will try to go:)

Using cellular automata as an example it is argued that this dimensional reduction implies more constraints than the freedom we have in constructing models. This is the main reason why so-far no completely consistent mathematical models of quantum black holes have been found.

Essay dedicated to Abdus Salam.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9310026

By: Clifford

Clifford — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:27:20 +0000

TM - I’ll do something on ADS/CFT some time soon.
Travis Garrett, and erc - thanks for te extra physics.
Plato - “iPodmanship” is a really good word. I’m going to use it.

-cvj

By: Qulog

Qulog — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:18:00 +0000

In Stores Next Summer: the iPod Planck!

There are two important rules when making jokes: never explain a joke, and never make a physics joke. At least not in public.
Anyway, if you don’t care about these rules and / or if you want to learn about the Planck scale, do head to Cosmic Variance…

By: erc

erc — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:44:08 +0000

As an alternative to the Bigatti and Susskind review (hep-th/0002044), I’d like to suggest an offering from Bousso hep-th/0203101 for a discussion of the holographic principle.

By: astromcnaught

astromcnaught — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:22:05 +0000

cvj says - Are you rolling on the floor now?

More like head floating around in hyperspace with the only connection to the floor being through adrenalin… I still feel weird.

2 hours later - Blimey, that was good, a real bit of physics worked it’s way into my brain, I think. I can see why we should be excited about this principle now.

More power to the blogosphere I say, even if, ultimately and finally its entire contents are described by its surface