[ANGLAIS] MQ2 : Mystery Quotation #2 - Forum Science ludique : la science en s'amusant

**mtheory** · 14/04/2007, 12h17

Hello !

This one should be rather easy to guess.

"Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."

Phys2 · 14/04/2007, 12h53

Hello,

Cliquez pour afficher

But I don't know when and why he has said it

**mtheory** · 14/04/2007, 13h02

Citation:

Posté par Phys2

Hello,

Cliquez pour afficher

But I don't know when and why he has said it

May be he said it too, but he wasn't the first.

Phys2 · 14/04/2007, 13h06

Plagiarism !

Michel (mmy) · 14/04/2007, 13h32

According to Wikiquote, this text is only attributed to this astronomer. If so, difficult to tell for sure when he said it and in which circumstances.

The text from Haldane is indicated as "the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we CAN suppose."

BR

vin_100 · 17/04/2007, 17h02

google said me...

Cliquez pour afficher

but the circumstances?

**mtheory** · 17/04/2007, 17h14

Yes, it was Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, congratulations !

vin_100 · 17/04/2007, 17h31

I don’t have any merit!
I found it in 10 seconds with google.

That's why, I would like to do a recommendation:
for the next quotations, the author of the topic has to check that it is not so easy with google or wikiquote... I think it will be more interesting...

Kind regards

**mtheory** · 17/04/2007, 17h36

Citation:

Posté par vin_100

I don’t have any merit!
I found it in 10 seconds with google.

That's why, I would like to do a recommendation:
for the next quotations, the author of the topic has to check that it is not so easy with google or wikiquote... I think it will be more interesting...

Kind regards

I'm afraid it won't be easy, because interesting and famous quotations are...famous !

humanino · 17/04/2007, 17h49

Hi there !

Nice quotation

Concerning the primary (?) goal of those (english) discussions, I am wondering if :

Citation:

Posté par vin_100

I don’t have any merit!

is not a bit ackward, or to put iot differently, if it is not too high level to be actually used in common discussions. This is often the case with latin rooted expressions. I know that we say it that way in french, and I am sure this is also correct in english.

What do you think ?
Any suggestions ?

vin_100 · 17/04/2007, 17h57

of course!!

So i think it isn't necessary to put a too famous one!
but may be one can say it will be too similar to the topic "grenier"...

A little remark/suggestion (a sadistic one?)
It will be very more difficult with an equation, because
I think it is not possible to search on the web...

humanino · 17/04/2007, 18h02

Citation:

Posté par vin_100

It will be very more difficult with an equation, because I think it is not possible to search on the web...

Excellent idea

Alternatively, we start a "wikiequation" !

**mtheory** · 17/04/2007, 18h09

let's do a test !

Michel (mmy) · 17/04/2007, 18h19

Citation:

Posté par mtheory

I'm afraid it won't be easy, because interesting and famous quotations are...famous !

Yes. Another approach, a bit more difficult, is to take texts from old articles, in particular articles concerning problems, questions, before the answer was given, before that or that famous theory was published. Or texts part of discussion of fine physical points, or texts showing some aspects of the thinking of that or that scientist. Or texts that are close to famous quotations, but not including the famous quotation. Or extract from textbooks... Those texts are not so famous.

The idea would be to choose texts that tell something, either about science, about the history of science, or about the way some famous or less famous scientists thought. Finding the origin must force readers to understand the text, hence a kind of practice of the language.

Example:

"But another viewpoint is cogent. It constructs a powerful sieve in the form of a slightly altered and slightly more nebulous principle: ‘Nature likes theories that are simple when stated in coordinate-free, geometric language’. . . . According to this principle, Nature must love general relativity, and it must hate Newtonian theory. Of all theories ever conceived by physicists, general relativity has the simplest, most elegant geometric foundations. . . . By contrast, what diabolically clever physicist would ever foist on man a theory with such a complicated geometric foundation as Newtonian theory?"

(Hint: from a textbook)

BR

EDIT: Croisement (how do you say that in English?)

humanino · 17/04/2007, 18h52

Citation:

Posté par mtheory

let's do a test !

I'm right there

humanino · 17/04/2007, 18h55

Citation:

Posté par mmy

But another viewpoint is cogent. It constructs a powerful sieve in the form of a slightly altered and slightly more nebulous principle: ‘Nature likes theories that are simple when stated in coordinate-free, geometric language’. . . . According to this principle, Nature must love general relativity, and it must hate Newtonian theory. Of all theories ever conceived by physicists, general relativity has the simplest, most elegant geometric foundations. . . . By contrast, what diabolically clever physicist would ever foist on man a theory with such a complicated geometric foundation as Newtonian theory?

Is the textbook itslef devoted to Einstein's work ?

Michel (mmy) · 17/04/2007, 20h35

Citation:

Posté par humanino

Is the textbook itslef devoted to Einstein's work ?

What do you mean by Einstein's work? All modern physics is Einstein's work, almost, according to some!

BR

martini_bird · 17/04/2007, 21h21

Hello,

could it be E. Wigner ?