I’m a sucker for popular literature on mathematics and evolutionary biology, and were it not for RyanAir’s grossly unfair 15kg luggage allowance I would now be finishing this book on the Riemann Hypothesis instead of leaving it in my parents’ library in Dublin. Or maybe not. I felt it wasn’t well written, and now Amazon reviewers are finding all kinds of faults with it, so perhaps I will start again with Prime Obsession, which incidentally would be a good brand name if anyone ever decides to market perfume to geeks.
Extreme physics is another topic I lap upThis link to a New York Times article should be permanent, courtesy of a pact with Userland and the NYT. It’s an officially sanctioned back door, of sorts, the result of a NYT keenly aware that bloggers’ links are great publicity, yet wanting to charge for its archives.. The New York Times updates us on the latest in string theory in today’s science section, and it makes for some mind-blowing paragraphs:
“In the long run,” he said, “the universe doesn’t want to be four-dimensional. It wants to be 10 dimensions.”
So sooner or later, the loops will unravel like a tangle of rubber bands, passing through a succession of configurations that take less and less energy to maintain, until finally the other dimensions expand and the cosmological constant is gone.
The decay of the cosmological constant will be fatal, astronomers agree. At that moment a bubble of 10-dimensional space will sweep out at the speed of light, rearranging physics and the prospects of atoms and planets, not to mention biological creatures.
So all of you hoping for everlasting fame or immortality, don’t waste your energy. Literally.
Yep, if I won the lottery, I’d go straight back to university, paying brilliant but hungry PhD candidates to stay patiently by my side as I stumble through mathematical foothills, up to physics base camp, then making the ascent into the rarified air of quantum physics, hoping for a glimpse of the Theory of Everything at the summit. So far, nobody’s made it all the way up, or at least come back alive.
Unfortunately, because I have a modicum of numeracy, I will never play the lottery. Catch-22.
the economist reviewed three books on riemann hypothesis, free content, you can read it here:
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1907656
Extreme physics? Nerds swap matrices describing superstrings while whacking each other with padded sticks? Can’t see it being as popular as Joe Millionaire II. I am worried about your reading habits, Stefan: either books about how Cod saved the universe, or about how superstrings underpin it. Face it, both are just a sign from your subconscious that you are looking for meaning in the World, a force bigger than yourself that explains life’s vagaries. Next, you’ll be rabitting on about e-meters and L. Ron. At least go for a less embarassing Pauline event, please. Suggested remedy: a healthy dose of Jane Austen or the Barchester Chronicles –something soothingly non-ontological.