This is simply the best image Hubble has ever taken IMO, which is impressive given the competition. My favorite before this was one of the first, a close-up of The Eagle Nebula, a one light year tall region of star-forming, seen face on. That was amazing because for the first time we saw the three-dimensionality of these clouds. Very Inspiring.
The Carina Nebula, below, seems similar, but in this case it's from the perspective of being near the bottom of the cloud, looking up. Even more dimensionality! The Carina Nebula is 7500 light years away, and that cloud is 3 light years tall.
Well done, Hubble Scientists! Happy 20th.
22 comments:
Hi Steven,
I realize it’s off topic yet as we seem to have similar opinions of this scientist I thought you might be interested in Peter Woit’s latest act of cowardice and shameless manipulation. Sometimes I think his blog’s title should be changed from “Not Even Wrong” to “Never To Allow Fairness”. I would send him the definition of transparency, yet I think he already knows what it is, yet still it’s merits escapes him.
Best,
Phil
P.S. As it is off topic I would not be the least bit disturbed if you erased this comment, as I will be grateful simply having the knowledge that for a brief moment it was allowed to exist:-)
Hi Steven,
As a further update, despite my expectations a comment I left in regard to Peter Woit's post has initially survived on his site. This leaves me quite perplexed as either he was confused that it referred only to Antony Valentini’s behaviour or he has changed his ways, which would obligate me then to make an apology. I think I’ll wait a little longer to see if he replies, as to help me decide which it is and what I should think and do.
Best,
Phil
P.S. Crosby remains while Ovechkin has fallen, and then for now all is right with the world;-)
Hi Steven,
As a result of Antony Valentini posting an explanation of his actions, it gave me a further opportunity to reiterate my position in respect to that of Woit’s tactics and methods regarding his own blog. It will be interesting to see if he erases my comment hich is in part a response to that of Valentini, yet extends more generally relevant in such regard. As they same. only time will tell.
Best,
Phil
Hi Phil,
Well it looks like your point was well taken enough for Peter Woit to keep it, hmm?
As far as the sniping over the issue at hand, I'm glad to see that Brian Josephson was re-invited. His Josephson's Junctions have added significantly to human knowledge, regardless of the paranormal stuff he got into later.
Mike Towler is a respected Cambridge physicist and an expert on deBroglie-Bohm theory, important in the field of Quantum Hydrodynamics. I wrote a page re Towler at this my blog two months ago: here.
I'll be working for the US Census for the next 2 months Phil, starting last week when I put in 55 hours. As such I have to put blogging and reading the many wonderful blogs that interest me on the backburner, alas. So I'm sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.
Hi Steven,
For me the bottom line in regards to the conference is that the Bohmian’s are all taking themselves far too seriously, which means to me they compare with all the rest now as becoming more dogmatic and self righteous. If they were to have the late David Bohm decide the issue the ones they attempted to deinvite would for him have been at the top of the guest list. Prof. Bohm was a real seeker, with that having him head and shoulder above this bunch. I’m not saying he had all the answers and he would have been the firsts to agree, yet he recognized some truths about nature that the majority of his peers still don’t understand and have never really bother to try..
As for my comment on Woit’s blog, it true he did allow the first one to remain, yet he omitted the qualifying second one , which confirms that he didn’t realize my first was also pertinent to his general behaviour. I’m disappointed as if he had let it stand it would have meant I’ve had him wrong all along and would have been happy to apologize and retract it myself. That is if the format he used would have such thins allowed:-)
Best,
Phil
I'm very sorry to hear that he wouldn't let your second comment through, Phil. He's done that to me too, and I'm sure it's not just us. It's why I adopted the policy of NEVER posting there again.
Let's face it Phil, not every weblog is as free and as open as Bee's and Stefan's wonderful BackReAction.
If Peter and Lubos wish to be tyrants, then so be it. It's their houses, their choice. Shrug.
Having said that, if you still wish to comment on either's blog and are denied access, you should save your work and by all means give it a go here.
I'm always interested in your stuff, Phil, and not just me. If two certain elitists aren't, that's their problem.
Hi Steven,
Well I appreciate you saying you have interest in what i might have to say, as I do the same for you. However as you I don’t give much credence or attention to Dr. Woit’s blog, not so much as it being primarily self servicing, as many blogs are, yet more due to his tactics often which are consistent with those of propagandists, where the strategic use of censorship amounts essentially to the proliferation of misinformation at times. If he were simply one of those anonymous crackpot bloggers, I’d have no real objection, as they in the end have no real influence, yet as he being a scientist of some note and intelligence I find this as unacceptable behaviour for someone being in the position of holding the public’s trust.
None the less I’m not of the mind to imbark on any kind of personal crusade about it as if it’s the responsibility of any his rests more with his peers. Anyway I did save a copy of the follow up comment of mine which he erased so if you are interested its as follows..
”Dear Dr, Valentini,
I would agree that letters exchanged directly between individuals should remain generally as a matter of principle and integrity to be considered private. However, there is also the point that once such a letter is offered it becomes the property of the recipient by way of the act itself. That’s to say, although our thoughts may indeed be private, our actions have them extended to the world beyond, to then have them to become part of reality and thus the consequence of such actions should not only be considered as a mere possibility, as to be unexpected, unwarranted or not.
I would also have it reminded, that all such actions, including those of blog authors, should be taken as being the same. That is in such circumstance, transparency not only being necessary for those accused, yet also for the accuser(s), once the line of having things confined to ones thoughts has been crossed. This of course is demonstrated to be fundamental by way of your own specialty of interest, that as being the difference between simple potential and absolute certainty.
Sincerely,
Phil “
Best,
Phil
Let me be clear: I have no problem with Peter Woit as a Scientist or Mathemetician, nor as a popularizer of "anti-strings bias" as he is accused of being. And which he is. ;-)
My ONLY problem with him is his harsh "heavy moderation", an opinion you and I share.
However, I very much like his blog (and his book)and notably the vast majority of the repliers there, especially John Baez, Peter Shor, and Bee.
As a "person", he does seem quite a bit cranky. As a Professional, well, he is primarily an Instructor in Calculus IV (Differential Equations) and Group Representation Theory; and in Mathematical Research, a seeker of truth in Toy Model BRST cohomology using Langlands (Langlands being that branch of Math developed by Robert Langlands of British Columbia, one of Canada's finest).
He also apparently loves Ed Witten, who goes out of his way to ignore Peter.
"Who are are you going to believe .... Me? ... or somebody who writes a book?"
... Ed Witten
Oh, ouch. That had to hurt.
Maybe that explains Peter's crankiness, but if so then tough titties, I don't care. It's not my place to psychoanalyze Scientists. I had a tough professor like Peter once. He wasn't a pleasant person, but he was damned fine at what he did, and taught me much. So has Peter.
But his "heavy moderation" is why I will never post there again. He is completely within his rights, but it smacks of inherent dishonesty in a subtle way, so, no.
Hi Steven,
You are certainly less critical of Dr. Woit’s conduct in respect to his censoring of comments in terms of motive then I. What you refer to as to just being grumpy, I see as the actions of someone that is more concerned with them appearing as been right, rather than in the end have matters to become more clearly understood. This is where I find a vast difference between him and someone like Dr. Smolin in terms of protecting the intended utility of physics and science more generally. However as I said in the outset this is not something I think warrants anything more from me other than to be able to make the distinction.
Best,
Phil
Fine, Phil. I guess I'm the product of my grandfather, who counseled reason over emotion, fairness, and finding the good in the bad and the bad in the good; in people, events and things. I'm a product of my upbringing like everyone else.
In spite of his attitude at his (and Columbia university Math Department's) Not Even Wrong blog, I thoroughly enjoyed his book, where his attitude is emotion-free, and very well written in terms of exposition. I've read the book 3 times (have you?), and the "hard parts" 8 times. I will read them again. He was a wonderful teacher for me, personally.
I am nevertheless offended that he does what he does, especially to friends such as yourself. Why not e-mail him and ask why?
One last thing about Woit: the succinctness of his arguments, for example:
"It’s not “string theory” that has failed (that term now applies to so much that it is becoming meaningless). What has failed is the speculative idea of starting with string theory in the critical dimension (10) then finding a consistent “string vacuum” that keeps 4 dimensions large and somehow deals with the other six. 25 years of work on this have provided strong evidence that this can’t provide a predictive framework (leading to the multiverse nonsense as a desperate way out). Going to M-theory just makes things worse by providing even less predictivity.
"Anyone who wants to claim that this speculative idea has not failed needs to provide a plausible scenario in which it can be salvaged and turned into a success. I think the only way this can be done is through arguments of the sort “the general idea of string theory is so wonderful that there must be some unknown new insight into it which will come along and save the situation.” These are more wishful thinking than science."
Hi Steven,
In unfortunately having to leave to go to the office for a while, I then must to be brief. The fact is I have no problem with Woit’s arguments or reason, yet simply with what you call his attitude, which extends to be reflected in his blog. The truth being I too am by my very nature forgiving as holding myself being recognized in having many flaws. However this empathy extends less if the person in question is undoubtedly a very intelligent one, which Dr. Woit is undeniably.
That is his tactics in respect to censorship is not as he claims, as to merely have able the signal become heard over the noise, yet in fact for him is predetermined what the noise is before careful enough analyse, which would include the findings of others. This then for me is intentional manipulation and has no semblance to being rooted in the true spirit of the scientific method. As for writing him, I have openly already been able in the past express my feeling to him directly on Bee’s and Stefan’s blog and thus he is clearly aware of them. To be fair Woit is not the only physicist holding such a posture and to practice such methods as feeling being justifiable, yet they also for similar reasons have me to have them almost totally ignored. That is I find a difference between being simply ignorant as to the deliberate promotion of it.
Best,
Phil
Woit is most certainly not the only Scientist with such an attitude, Phil. That kind of attitude used to upset me as well, and quite terribly in fact.
Then it dawned on me there is nothing I could do about it. A person's basic personality type is set in infancy, perhaps when sperm meets egg. I care about that, but by caring less, I am happier. We can't be everyone's Mommy and Daddy, more's the pity. It's sort of the whole grant me the courage to change the things I can and recognize the things I can't stuff, and shrug off the unchangeable stuff.
The key of course is the wisdom to know the difference.
And that's not always easy to recognize, although it does get easier with age. I friggin' love being in my fifties, Phil. I wish everyone was. Woit is, but he's a puppy in that sense and just getting started.
My final point, regarding stubbornness, is there is more than just personality types involved.
Ironically, the system itself (I say ironically because Woit's claim to fame is complaining about the system) encourages scientists to hold strongly to their little fiefdoms ... their little specialties in their general field. Rather than fostering co-operation and understanding via polite and intellectual debate, the system encourages needless competition and sniping.
And you know what the solution to that is, right Phil?
Change the system.
Smolin and Lazaridis at Perimeter and the other IAS's are doing just that. It's all good, if progressing a bit too slowly for our tastes. These things take time ... established traditional systems don't go quietly into the good night.
I hate to agree with Lubos, but I think he is totally right about Woit. The guy is not a top-class physicist so - instead of being more humble about the gaps in his knowledge - he covers his back by being controversial and hostile about string theory and then becomes incredibly defensive when questioned and deletes comments which disagree with his standpoint. It's very similar to Lubos, but Lubos really knows his stuff and he only deletes comments because he's a nutter.
Well I can agree Lubos is a nutter, which I can back up because I live in NJ and this is where Lubos got his PhD. As far as being right about Peter, the terrible page that comes up when you go to TRF from NEW is typical of Lubos' and other right-wing extremists' distortions of facts. Peter has written many papers, but only 1 in superstrings theory. Lubos is knowledgeable on everything except that which threatens SST, at which point he goes ballistic and insults unnecessary and hides behind the SST maths which he knows damn well that damn few can follow. This is a typical tactic of theirs. If you wish to know real SST, talk to David Gross or Ed Witten, or read Zwieback's text.
I think you and Phil and I can agree that both men are just plain rude. Sigh. I must remind myself that Canadians and the English are very polite. I like to think of myself that way as well, but I must remember that compared to NJ and NYC, nearly everyone is polite in comparison!
80% of the people around here are very nice, but the rude ones are extraordinarily rude. After a lifetime here, I've gotten a bit too used to it, I suppose. It's an honor to have met such nice gentlemen as yourselves. In that light I can understand why you're each so upset.
Oh, and you're such a gentleman too. :)
Thank you, suh.
Well, you may not be feeling so cheery when I put up the American Archpatriot Stephen Colbert vs BP CEO Tony Hayward page.
Hi Steven,
I second Thomas’s sentiments that you are a gentleman, which is to demonstrate that rude the American is a stereotype, propagated mostly by Americans themselves:-) What Canadians have done is to put all their rude people to work by making them hockey players:-)
Best,
Phil
Thank you very much, Phil, but the reason is completely the fault of my two grandfathers, the Slovak one and especially the English one, stepping in to fill the gap in male role-modeling (and doing so expertly) when my Father was asked to either give up his girlfriend and stay, or leave, by my mother. He chose to leave. I was 11 at the time (1967) and the oldest of 4. I needed help, and got it. I had 3 fathers essentially. Only Adultery-man survives, but he's 87 now and admits his mistake.
Speaking of rudeness, it's not just Woit and Motl. Perhaps it's something with having an high IQ and not understanding why others don't see how "right" one is. Shrug, I don't know. I do know such people exist. David Gross in our times has been mentioned frequently as being of such a bent, but it's a bent backed up to a certain extent by being a co-author of a the last truly great advancement in current Mathematical Physics.
There have been others in History who had extremely rude personalities in their private life, but without the advantage of blogging technology, notably:
- Galileo Galilei
- Issac Newton
- Mark Twain
- Thomas Edison
Yet all accomplished men.
So I make no bones between a person's personality and accomplishments. It more than likely has to do with upbringing, shrug.
The Colbert-Hayward-Sea turtle fight is now up, here.
Enjoy ;-)
As far as Hockey goes, Phil, it may surprise you that the first book by a sports celebrity I ever read was by the Boston Bruin, Derek Sanderson, at the age of 15 in 1972. I enjoyed that book so much, I went on to the great sports books of the time in baseball, football, and basketball, by Jim Bouton, Jerry Kramer, and Dave DeBusschere, respectively. Loved them all. Ah, to be 15 again, eh? ;-)
From Wiki: "Sanderson was in the public eye enough that it has been reported New York Yankees' shortstop Derek Sanderson Jeter was named after him."
Amazing. Jeter denies it, yet it makes for a good story.
But Sanderson's book was the first, and he spoke longingly and lovingly about what it was like to be Canadian and grow up as a lad loving and playing hockey, with makeshift ice rinks your Dads build for you in your backyards.
Good for you guys. I still can't follow the too-fast flight of a hockey puck on television, but if it works for you, it works, and good on ya.
Hi Steven,
In as I grew up more in a rural setting hockey for me is remembered as being played on lakes and ponds we shovelled off. You might be surprised the team sport I more enjoyed and participated in was baseball. So I was as much a fan of Mickey Mantle as I was Rocket Richard. As for following the puck I never did understand the problem and laughed when the Fox network would use that blue streak effect. Well as it stands the Stanley Cup this year went to Chicago, which now has the Leafs as being the longest of the original six teams not winning it again. That was 1967 and the joke is in wondering if the Leafs will win the cup before the Americans return to the moon:-)
Best,
Phi
The joke this morning was some Blackhawks legend turned sportscaster being brought to tears upon Chicago's victory, leading Don Imus to retort:
"There's NO CRYING in Hockey!"
Updates on Woit/Motl:
Motl: Jacques Distler spanks Lubos something FIERCE at his website, musings. Click here, then go to the very last comment to witness Jacques' lovely spankery.
Woit: Peter created a "fake" blog titled "String Theory Fan"just to see if Cornell's arXiv preprints site has a String Theory bias, and sure enough, it does! Here's my contribution, which is sarcastic and re-stated here since it's "awaiting moderation", if you know what I mean. ;-)
I’m glad to see somebody still likes String Theory, especially its ability to make predictions that will either prove or falsify the theory, which as far as I know, to date, it has done neither. But as Little Orphan Annie sings: “Tomorrow! Tomorrow, I’ll love you, tomorrow! Tomorrow’s a brand new day!”
Feathers in the cap of String Theory:
1) It has provided a neat calculation in the field of quantum chromodynamics regarding the relationship between quarks and gluons.
2) …
Um, hold on, I’m thinking. I’m sure there’s something else.
2) ….
Ummm.
1) It has provided a neat calculation in the field of quantum chromodynamics regarding the relationship between quarks and gluons.
And that’s pretty much it. However, one must question how much string theory has advanced, since quark-gluon interactions were the basis for the invention of string theory in the first place.
Also, a caution re using Linde as your first scientist of note. He’s a darling of science journalists, not necessarily of other scientists. He is wildly speculative, not that there’s anything wrong with that. It’s fine to be wrong 97% of the time (when speculating), if you’re right the other 3%, and in being right you advance Science. Case in point: George Gamow. He was so wrong so many times (remember Ylem?), but two of his thoughts have advanced Science tremendously. I would advise in the future focusing on the “bigs” in string theory, notably Ed Witten, Leonard Susskind (#2 tries harder), Joe Polchinski, David Gross, and Jacques Distler.
Finally, congrats on being a rebel and going against the grain. That’s so Einstein!
Post a Comment