@Dodsy read the quora link

it's fair to assume that the asker is actually probably pretty competent at physics.

@Dodsy no context

I also don't like when people who have gotten to a place where another person wants to get can't get real with someone. Like Richard Meuller wasn't born knowing physics.

Well, do keep in mind how much failing at something can harm how much you like it

I thought you liked richard

tlop pwist

Like, 30-40% of what initially drove me out of physics was that I was taking an honors class and not doing well

Right.

right

i like physics

it's all just math

and geometry

and programming

@Avantgarde nah

I've only ever taken algebra based

@Dodsy What I don't like about his suggestion is that it doesn't at all match reality.

@Dodsy ive taken trig based

You don't get into a good grad school just based on the GRE

last semester

he isn't getting real

So it makes sense that if someone is feeling iffy about physics skills, it's not necessarily bad for him to suggest that the person at least deal with physics in a hobby context

@Semiclassical oh yeah I was trying to find that post.

It was a while back.

For one, if you're going by GRE score...well, international students on average do better at the Physics GRE than domestic students.

Probably because they do study for it a lot more rigorously.

What you typically have as a domestic student is stuff like undergraduate research.

all GRE does is show you knew the material at one moment

To be fair, it's a lot of material.

I'm pretty sure

the question was like

But it is just one metric.

whereas an undergraduate degree shows you knew all the material over several yhears

"is it too late for me to start university to be a physicist"

and richard said

you cannot just cram for the GRE

"just write the GRE, you'll save money and get into grad school right away"

ugh.

@Dodsy da fuck

I don't read a lot of his stuff, that just sounds merpy

sounds to me like Richard wants to keep younger people from taking away his job.

merpy lol

He almost surely has tenure

I wish I could find it

So there's no risk of that

this was about 2 years ago.

He got his PhD in 1969.

That to me is the real significant point.

That means that the time during which he got his PhD and then worked to get a tenure-track position is roughly 40 years old.

I don't trust that at all.

But the screenshot in question is very reasonable, like the best chance that someone who's struggling a lot in physics has to keep being interested in it as opposed to just getting discouraged and giving up is to engage with it in a less stressful context than academic, such as having a hobby. That's why I defend this

If he got his PhD in 1969 hes most likely emeritus

Not too many 60's phds around anymore

Right, true.

that's a good point. @Daminark

plus...ffs, he got his PhD at Berkeley

Though Semi's point is very noteworthy, academia seems to have big time crunched between then and now, so he probably had it easier

Yeah

It reminds me of a conversation I was privy to.

At some point the amount of people in it boomed

I'm not sure how effective it can be to make physics a hobby if one wants to excel at it. Maybe that was somewhat true 200 years ago. Not so true presently

I saw a graph once.

There are weekly seminars during the semester, and typically the speaker for the main Physics and Astronomy colloquium is invited to have lunch with some grad students to talk about their career and their experiences.

I happened to sit in on one in particular (either because of the topic or because of the free pizza, who knows).

quora.com/…

read richard's answer from here

I mean, you may not soon get to all the modern stuff in string theory or whatever, and if academia is not doing the work, at least hobby physics will keep something going. And yeah @PVAL he's emeritus

Where the visiting professor talked about how she didn't understand why students these days were so obsessed with their career trajectory; one's career is basically just a random walk.

The thing is that a lot of modern physics is super technical

And while there's some truth to that...this is someone who got their PhD at Berkeley and then managed to get a post-doc at Harvard.

lmfao

So there's a pretty damn strong selection effect there.

Kinda pissed me off.

so unless someone comes up with another model, they'll have to spend a lot of time learning stuff to understand whats going on in a modern physics paper/

Right.

All the more so if you do something in the realm of field theory. (I don't.)

@Typhon uuuuuuuhhhh

I find it less severe in condensed matter, but it's still definitely there.

There's definitely areas of math that a brilliant hobbyist can contribute to. The issue with physics is that a lot of the same systems have really been study for decades and decades.

Yeah.

omfg

quora.com/…

what is this guy?

an inflated narcissist?

You just hit the hammer with the nail on it's head man.

He probably asked the question too.

He sounds like a guy who was at one point a real respectable researcher and became a pop science figurehead.

I think he's mostly associated with climate science stuff (pro-, not anti-)

Those are too common nowadays, but I guess if that's where the money is.

I think that's probably true too. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller#/media/…

richard mueller explaining antimatter

As a data point: "In March 2011, he testified to the U.S. House Science, Space and Technology Committee that preliminary data confirmed an overall global warming trend.[2] On July 28, 2012, he stated, "Humans are almost entirely the cause" (from the Wiki page)

(not going into arguments re: climate science, just saying that that's where he's situated)

@Semiclassical Seems like he doesn't have any expertise in that area.

@Semiclassical I did see him share an image of air polution over countries.

oh well

I'm watching national treasure.

even though nick cage is a bad actor.

Well, the Wiki page also says this: "Subsequently, Muller branched out into other areas of science, and in particular the Earth sciences. His work has included attempting to understand the ice ages, dynamics at the core-mantle boundary, patterns of extinction and biodiversity through time, and the processes associated with impact cratering."

So he has done work in climate science. (Looking at his CV I saw stuff dating back to the 90's, I think, so not a late-joiner)

Hm.

@Dodsy how dare thee!

So I'd say he's established in that area, and not an invalid spokesman for it. (Doesn't make what he says about the GRE any less crap, of course)

imgur.com/a/zblLg

reviews of his new book

Eh

I wish I could find it

I don't even know how I would go about doing that

:38261540

90's is like more than 20 years into his academic career as a physicist.

yeah.

full CV is listed here: muller.lbl.gov

sorry that link gave my computer diseases.

oof

anyways, it agrees with your statement

@Dodsy I cannot resist laughing at that first review. If this guy considers himself a man of God, then his attitude does not reflect that at all. Nobody that actually believes in God in the sense that they are actually Christian is going to post stuff like that on quora. This guy is worse than some trolls on 4chan.

@Daminark Hmm. Seems that the prof I had in mind re: the conversation is a physics prof at Chicago. (not going to say who because no just no)

seems to me like he's trying to push into the "market" of people who legitimately believe in God by writing a book that basically shoehorns the physics to make it reflect something weird.

i mean... not that his hypothesis might not be true one way or the other

Anyone who thinks metaphysical questions about God should have ethical implications is dumb imo.

but the presence of God has no relevance on the physics of the universe

but I'm probably in the minority on that.

But yeah, Harvard PhD 1979.

The random walk conversation? Meh

@PVAL-inactive I tend to agree.

@PVAL-inactive I meant that the first review claims that he claims that he is Christian. I laugh at that, as any true Christian wouldn't be this much of an asshole. He'd at least try to be a bit more civil.

Though not entirely, and I"m having a hard time pinning down exactly how.

(at least, one would hope)

> any true Christian

Could be doing a variation on the old St Augustine line: "Lord, let me be humble!...but not yet."

@PVAL from a purely philosophical standpoint about God, which I'm defining here to be creating the universe, it'd be trickier to say

@arctictern well there is a history of people (especially noblemen) of just using religion to assert power.

Like, it's hard to pull ethical stuff purely from that

people can lie.

@Daminark true but they said "a spiritual Christian God", which leads me to believe that the ethical considerations are built into the argument.

Omnipotent/omniscient/etc, then it becomes whether God decides that which is good or loves it because it is. And you'd need to establish if you're arguing from metaphysics which is the case and why, the former seems to be a much tougher position to defend

hence, my remark is: He probably doesn't believe what he's preaching

I guess I'd say that I would tend to put a wall between religion and the substance of ethics.

or rather: he doesn't believe the ethical portions of what he believes

which then leads me to say that he probably doesn't believe in the Christian God.

But if you're coming from the perspective of the monotheistic religions, then belief that ethics are determined precisely by God makes much more sense

Nice, I leave for a minute and the topic is now god

Where I can understand it better is in regards to the context of that ethics and the motivation thereof.

Well monotheistic religions are easy to discredit and argue against.

@Avantgarde ikr

facepalm. Not making a religious argument

I avoid any conversations about religion.

Metaphysical arguments for existence of something representing a God aren't.

just saying that the guy probably isn't believing in the Christian God as that would have a moral implication. More likely, he just believes in a God.

brb

As in, a believer and a non-believer could both believe equally well in the dignity of mankind. But for the former it would have a certain 'universal' significance that the latter really can't endorse.

so hence I was laughing at the review saying Christian God

@Typhon if he thinks this spiritual being he has physics arguments about is the same as the character in the Bible stories, that's the Christian Yahweh guy

Plus, there are two concepts which are essential in the Christian tradition but which really don't make sense outside of it---namely, sin and grace.

@semiclassical I guess you'd have to convince me that a creator has some sort of care for the dignity of mankind.

Well, that's kinda the point. For the believer, there's no 'convincing' to be done.

I don't know a good argument why a God should have any preference.

It's hard to make that without falling into theodicy, yeah.

@arctictern Well true. He could possible be making arguments about the flood. I didn't think about that. I presumed he was just making an argument about why the universe could be created by some single universal deity without making any assertion about the nature or substance of said deity.

@PVAL-inactive cause He created mankind and therefore doesn't want it destroyed?

it created other things too

true

maybe it prefers sparrows

Eh, that's not really a great argument. I create equations on paper; doesn't mean I consider them to have dignity.

why must it "prefer" either?

Well, grace is a pretty big expression of 'preference.'

Yeah it's likely best that we don't get into an argument over whether the Abrahamic religions are correct or not here, but my point is more like, if you meet someone who believes in that conception of God (which Typhon has reason to believe Richard doesn't, or at least not properly so), then it makes a lot of sense that the moral is precisely what God declares. Anyway, I'd recommend we shift this back to math

But then I'm a person who takes ethics to be all about the dignity of persons (and that such is self-evident).

@Semiclassical true, but if one assumes the existence of a deity that cares ultimately about morality, why wouldn't you start taking an interest in morality? similarly, if a deity cared about well washed linens, you'd wash your clothing every hour.

In most of my experience, religious debates go down a slippery slope that isn't really all too worth it

Yeah, but you'd do it out of fear. Not out of belief that it's right.

@Daminark I was mostly making the snide remark of "this guy doesn't sound like a Christian to me. In my experience, they general aren't narcissistic a-holes."

A god in that sense would make any notion of 'duty' impossible.

Anyway religions (monotheistic or not) have its believers assume way more implausible things than the metaphysical existence of a God, over a much more compelling and likely alternative.

What makes a Christian?

My own point of view, I'll admit, is on the atheistic side.

I've known plenty of a-holes that went to church every sunday.

@PVAL-inactive im just referring to my personal experience of knowing people who considered themselves Christian.

But I have a certain appreciation for the meanings that get attached to that faith, even if they can be abused.

@PVAL-inactive well then fair enough

@Semiclassical well morality is always important for the sake of itself.

Sure. But is washing the linens?

that was just an absurd example.

tdcj.state.tx.us/death_row/dr_executed_offenders.html

@Daminark you said it

So now, uh, isn't it cool that... I dunno... the intersection of open, dense sets is dense?

to illustrate that a deity telling you to is going to be more motivating then "doing it for its own sake"

read some of the statements

@Semiclassical though I would argue that BO is not pleasant.

There's plenty of a-holes claiming to be christian.

well, it probably doesn't smell too good no.

@PVAL-inactive fair point. I assumed that the reviewer made an assumption based on him writing about creation myth.

or the possibility of a creation myth in general being feasibly true

tbh, I love the idiot argument against the argument against creation myths

My point is more that, in order to have morality worth calling as such, it has to be predicated on the conscience.

"prove the universe wasn't just willed into being 5 seconds ago"

ultimately you cannot

punch you the face, wait five seconds "Man, the universe that just came into existence is a dick to you."

QED

(I'm almost positive I"m stealing that from somewhere.)

@Semiclassical just saying man. Just saying.

relativity, string theory, etc. are never incompatible with creation theory because there is really no way to prove the universe didn't just poof into existence right fricking now.

anyways...

I have a question on recurrence relations

My main bone to pick with that argument is that (to quote an old prof of mine) while it's thinkable philosphically, it's not how human beings actually exist.

The universe may have only come into existence five seconds ago, but genuinely believing/acting as though that's true is pretty much indistinguishable from madness.

wondering how inf-dim Stiefel manifold V(n,R^inf) is contractible. to show S^inf is contractible we can apply the shift operator (homotopic to Id) and then homotope the image to a point (like shrinking the equator in S^2 to a point). I'm thinking we can apply a shift-forward-n-coordinates operator pointwise to V(n,R^inf), then in the kth coordinate contract the image to e_k. seem sensible?

hmm

What do you call the inference rule $A \Rightarrow A \land A$? Or is it 2 rules?

lmfao

wut

never read that before

I don't think it's quite what I was thinking of, but this 5sf pretty well captures what I was saying earlier:

(i've linked to the relevant one, hopefully)

the guy getting shot

@Semiclassical I meant that it disproves the physical argument of "well what about the age of stars and the big bang?!?"

time is a human construct

eh, it establishes that the physical argument is not the only one thinkable

doesn't mean that the alternative is reasonable

@Dodsy ugh. I meant that people argue that the universe is X years old because of ____. My point is, "no, because prove a diety didn't just clap his hands and poof all this into existence"

oh.

the omphalonian hypothesis

I don't talk about religion.

I'll go with "that's a boring universe."

@Semiclassical well it's an argument of absurdity that anyone can recognize. Believing it is certainly absurd, but that doesn't make the argument invalid.

Or maybe: "For being essentially boring, the universe is really impressive at seeming interesting."

lol

If I say anything, I'll say I agree with semi.

I like to assume things that there is overwhelming observable scientific evidence for are true.

It would be a very disappointing result.

i'd go with "what manner of creature would build 4chan into the universe"

Like if I stick a fork into a socket it will hurt me.

lmfao

right.

There's some pretty compelling evidence for how long certain things have existed.

but you still have to be careful with observable evidence.

@Dodsy incredibly ironic though if the universe were created 5 seconds before someone said "the universe could've been created 5 seconds ago for all you know"

"I left santa cookies and they were gone the next morning"

(at least in the state that radioactive decay started)

@PVAL-inactive I tested that as a child. Actually had some difficulty shocking myself.

now... that would be an awesome line for the beginning of a really meta book

The other point: Is there an operational difference between a universe that has actually existed for as long as we think, and one which has only existed for 5 seconds?

@Typhon that would be a coincidence.