[ANGLAIS] MQ2 : Mystery Quotation #2

[mtheory]

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."
-----

[Seirios]

Hello,

 Cliquez pour afficher

It's J.B.S. Haldane

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

[mtheory]

Hello,

 Cliquez pour afficher

It's J.B.S. Haldane

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

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

[Seirios]

Plagiarism !

[A voir en vidéo sur Futura]

[invité576543]

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

[invite58549cb8]

google said me...

 Cliquez pour afficher

http://c.dric.be/gium/issues/00/

but the circumstances?

[mtheory]

Yes, it was Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, congratulations !

[invite58549cb8]

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]

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 !

[invite8ef897e4]

Hi there !

Nice quotation

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

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 ?

[invite58549cb8]

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...

[invite8ef897e4]

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]

let's do a test !

[invité576543]

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?)

[invite8ef897e4]

let's do a test !

I'm right there

[invite8ef897e4]

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 ?

[invité576543]

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

[invite4793db90]

Hello,

could it be E. Wigner ?

[invité576543]

Hi!

I've a slight problem. It seems my example has superseded the proposal from mtheory, an equation. It was not my goal, I typed my message while he was entering his. We should clarify what this thread is now about!

To answer the question, no, it's not from Wigner.

BR

[invite8ef897e4]

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

Indeed
I was quite sloppy when refering to Einstein's work.
I was thinking about his work on general/special relativity.

[invite9c9b9968]

Too easy is the set of equations

I would be a dummy if didn't know it

Eer... Well... Here is the answer

 Cliquez pour afficher

Basic set of supercharges generators of a graded Lie algebra

[invite8ef897e4]

Basic set of supercharges generators of a graded Lie algebra

Sure, I'm sitting on them right now
The question is who wrote them first, and when !
OK, when they were published

[invite9c9b9968]

Ok I'll try.

 Cliquez pour afficher

Golfand and Likhtman in 1971 perhaps ?

[invite8ef897e4]

 Cliquez pour afficher

Golfand and Likhtman in 1971 perhaps ?

Gervais and Sakita, same year, but in 2 dimensions only ?
As a matter of fact, the question does not seem to be settled to me...

[invite8ef897e4]

No, I was clearly wrong actually. The issue is not of the concept of supersymmetry itslef, but the commutation relations displayed by Mtheory which were (I think, because I could not checked) not clearly stated yet in the work of Gervais and Sakita's work. So I take back what I said

[invite58549cb8]

What a mess in this thread!!!
But it’s ok! Let’s consider it as a experimental one…

About the mtheory’s poposal (Post 10)
I’m not acquainted with the Supersymmetry and the Quantum Mechanics,
But I imagine these equations presented a peculiar interest, probably historic, that’s why I think like Gwyddon

Ok I'll try.

 Cliquez pour afficher

Golfand and Likhtman in 1971 perhaps ?

About mmy’s point of view:

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.

Yes I am completely agree with this approach !!!! his example is still on, but I am without a clue.

And the last point concerns the disguised goal of these threads: the chosen language.
As mentioned above, we have to help about problems of “translation/redaction”, particularly in the case of a request…
For instance:

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

I propose “crossing”.. but I precise that my English is so poor, as you can read it… A better idea?? Maybe from Menlo Park

[invite58549cb8]

I would like to discuss about the organization of the aim and the interest of this thread, even if I don’t know what it will occur in the future. I approve the modification given by mmy for the “mysterious quotation”. What do you think?
And in this case, I see clearly the interest to use English. But contrary to that, I am not sure it is a good thing for the “mysterious equations”. I think they have to be accessible to the biggest number of persons. Moreover, we can also imagine to create two levels of mysterious equations (a easy one and a more difficult) as it exists in the Biology forum ( “La plante mystère des débutants”…) Once again, what do you think?

PS: I have hesitated a long time to put that here or in the “suggestion box”…????

Kind regards,

[invite9c9b9968]

Hi,

Great idea to divide the level

I agree with that.


About the translation of "croisement", actually "crossing" is a good option

[invite9c9b9968]

Hi all,

Why not come back to the principle of this thread ? I actually like the concept presented by mmy

But I've to admit that I'm lost at sea on his quotation... Some clues ?

Cheers,

J.

[invité576543]

Hi!

You'll laugh! I don't remember from which book I took the text

BR