tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5145200404704322540.post5100189005285804307..comments2023-10-11T06:50:10.494-04:00Comments on The Glass-Bottom Blog: Tomonaga and the bottleZedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10623092831367861959noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5145200404704322540.post-89289248641036315852011-07-12T23:03:43.022-04:002011-07-12T23:03:43.022-04:00I don't know to what extent we are in disagree...I don't know to what extent we are in disagreement. I don't mean to defend Dyson's claim re relative cultural prominence of Einstein/Feynman/Hawking and Dawkins/Sagan, only to say that the public is much more well-informed and interested in the lives than the works of the former group, but the latter group are to some extent defined by their most popular pop sci books.<br /><br />Hawking's big contribution (apart from a bunch of v. nice technical papers in general relativity) was the Hawking radiation business, i.e. the idea that black holes lose mass over time and eventually evaporate. (He goes on about this, rather opaquely, in one of the chapters of _Brief History._) Apart from the neatness of the idea I believe it might have been the first real prediction made by "quantum gravity."Zedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10623092831367861959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5145200404704322540.post-87332310100402655722011-07-12T18:45:19.685-04:002011-07-12T18:45:19.685-04:00It comes as no surprise that my sense of culture h...It comes as no surprise that my sense of culture here excludes the science/scientists completely and Sarang's (I think) includes them here and there disproportionately.<br /><br />I am also disqualified (or especially qualified) in that I don't really know what Hawkings' contribution is, apart from an adolescent-poseur reading of his big popsci book.zbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14795831846754083167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5145200404704322540.post-20721004492250737272011-07-12T16:36:36.193-04:002011-07-12T16:36:36.193-04:00Yeah I agree, the public's view of Einstein wa...Yeah I agree, the public's view of Einstein was basically unrelated to whatever Einstein happened to believe; in fact they probably couldn't TELL you what Einstein thought about most issues. Similarly, for the most part, with Hawking and Feynman. (Arguably E. and H. benefit from skillful use of the word "God" but I think the public's conception of them is weakly related to this.) On the other hand when it comes to Dawkins, if you have heard about the guy you know he's a militant atheist who is like yay evolution. It is the difference between a public intellectual and an intellectual who happens to be a celebrity.Zedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10623092831367861959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5145200404704322540.post-31798435973892549972011-07-12T15:34:48.175-04:002011-07-12T15:34:48.175-04:00Surely Einstein and Hawking *do* stand for things ...Surely Einstein and Hawking *do* stand for things that the public cares about (and would largely disagree with) -- they just don't know/understand what they stand for? Or by "stand for" do you mean that almost everyone who knows their names knows what theories they espouse?Elisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10270808520581466353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5145200404704322540.post-24629268638350007852011-07-12T13:55:04.306-04:002011-07-12T13:55:04.306-04:00See, I think of Hawking's cultural status as a...See, I think of Hawking's cultural status as almost exclusively a product of his life story. (The success of the book(s) can be traced to this.) Similarly, Einstein was "the smartest man alive" and wore socks of different colors. Feynman broadly falls into this class of legend, though admittedly he has always been a cult figure compared with E. or H. Most people who have read _Surely You're Joking_ etc. have the foggiest idea of what QED is _about_ -- certainly not a vivid enough one to associate Feynman with it in the sense that, say, Dawkins is associated with evolution or Sagan was with space. His fame, to the extent that it exists, rests on the anecdotes and on the _Feynman lectures_ on introductory physics, which are probably more displayed than read. And the peculiar cultural status of these lectures has to do with their consonance with the rest of the Feynman shtick: they are clever and colloquial.<br /><br />Now I think this kind of case is different in kind from that of Dawkins, who is famous among the public for work that is basically taken on its own terms. This is a separate issue from the overall level of one's fame; I agree that Dyson might be conflating the two but one needn't in general.Zedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10623092831367861959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5145200404704322540.post-52074139724431556942011-07-12T13:22:56.318-04:002011-07-12T13:22:56.318-04:00The gate keeps me out of the earlier article, so I...The gate keeps me out of the earlier article, so I can't speak to what degree he means 'Humours' except by what you've given, but it doesn't seem especially clear.<br /><br />It's important to remember about Sagan that he had a successful television show, so his cultural stature at the time was assured. He explained the universe, much as Hawking did with "A Brief History" (though less comprehensively and in a much more conventional way.) Anyway, surely Feynman is associated with decaying rubber or QED, depending on who you're talking to. The wacky bongo-playing hippie-guy aspect of Feynman is not widely known beyond the latter category I suspect.zbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14795831846754083167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5145200404704322540.post-2136997703798395682011-07-11T21:45:46.040-04:002011-07-11T21:45:46.040-04:00Agree re weirdness, and would say badness, of Dyso...Agree re weirdness, and would say badness, of Dyson qua writer.<br /><br />But I disagree re Sagan -- I mean, like, who the fuck was Carl Sagan? I have never heard of him except as a superannuated scifi FIGURE from the 70s or something. Does ANYONE think of him? I have no idea of what he ever did except write a bunch of shitty books with stupid one-word titles. Feynman at least has the advantage of technical immortality -- enough things named after him -- to assure a cult following in perpetuity.<br /><br />I think the point re Einstein, Hawking, and Feynman qua persona is that they plausibly represent Character Types, or Humours, or something, that have nothing to do at all with what they were associated with. Sagan I think of as associated with space: I think most people would. Is that true of Feynman or Hawking?Zedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10623092831367861959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5145200404704322540.post-10978504151672917652011-07-11T20:17:21.410-04:002011-07-11T20:17:21.410-04:00Dyson is such a weird writer.
I think Sagan was a...Dyson is such a weird writer.<br /><br />I think Sagan was at least as prominent in culture as Feynman apart from the short-lived legend of the Challenger inquiry. Hawking is in the same class, really, though his contemporaneity makes him seem more immediate (and his physical condition makes him more evocative). Einstein is in another class altogether, someone people might as well be lighting icons to.zbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14795831846754083167noreply@blogger.com