Zitat des Tages von Brian Greene:
If the theory turns out to be right, that will be tremendously thick and tasty icing on the cake.
We can certainly go further than cats, but why should it be that our brains are somehow so suited to the universe that our brains will be able to understand the deepest workings?
When general relativity was first put forward in 1915, the math was very unfamiliar to most physicists. Now we teach general relativity to advanced high school students.
Science is a self-correcting discipline that can, in subsequent generations, show that previous ideas were not correct.
I wouldn't say that 'The Fabric of the Cosmos' is a book on cosmology. Cosmology certainly plays a big part, but the major theme is our ever-evolving understanding of space and time, and what it all means for our sense of reality.
Physicists are more like avant-garde composers, willing to bend traditional rules... Mathematicians are more like classical composers.
Falsifiability for a theory is great, but a theory can still be respectable even if it is not falsifiable, as long as it is verifiable.
Quantum mechanics broke the mold of the previous framework, classical mechanics, by establishing that the predictions of science are necessarily probabilistic.
The real reason why general relativity is widely accepted is because it made predictions that were borne out by experimental observations.
Physics grapples with the largest questions the universe presents. 'Where did the totality of reality come from?' 'Did time have a beginning?'
I have long thought that anyone who does not regularly - or ever - gaze up and see the wonder and glory of a dark night sky filled with countless stars loses a sense of their fundamental connectedness to the universe.
The funny thing is, I sometimes get the impression that some people outside of the field think that there's some element of security that we have in working on a theory that hasn't made any predictions that can be proven false. In a sense, we're working on something unfalsifiable.
I've seen children's eyes light up when I tell them about black holes and the Big Bang.
Sometimes attaining the deepest familiarity with a question is our best substitute for actually having the answer.
By dimension, we simply mean an independent direction in which, in principle, you can move; in which motion can take place. In an everyday world, we have left-right as one dimension; we have back-forth as a second one; and we have up-down as a third.
All mathematics is is a language that is well tuned, finely honed, to describe patterns; be it patterns in a star, which has five points that are regularly arranged, be it patterns in numbers like 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 that follow very regular progression.
Relativity challenges your basic intuitions that you've built up from everyday experience. It says your experience of time is not what you think it is, that time is malleable. Your experience of space is not what you think it is; it can stretch and shrink.
I can't stand clutter. I can't stand piles of stuff. And whenever I see it, I basically just throw the stuff away.
Oftentimes, if you're talking to a seasoned interviewer who asks you a question, they may do a follow-up if they didn't quite get it. It's rare that they'll do a third or fourth or fifth or sixth follow-up, because there's an implicit, agreed-upon decorum that they move on. Kids don't necessarily move on if they don't get it.
Our eyes only see the big dimensions, but beyond those there are others that escape detection because they are so small.
No matter how hard you try to teach your cat general relativity, you're going to fail.
The boldness of asking deep questions may require unforeseen flexibility if we are to accept the answers.
One of the wonders of science is that it is completely universal. It crosses national boundaries with total ease.
A unified theory would put us at the doorstep of a vast universe of things that we could finally explore with precision.
Most scientists like to operate in the context of economy. If you don't need an explanatory principle, don't invoke it.
My mom says: 'Why aren't you a doctor?' and I'm like, 'I am a doctor!' and she's all, 'No, I mean a real doctor.' She reads my books, but she says they give her a headache.
The number of e-mails and letters that I get from choreographers, from sculptors, from composers who are being inspired by science is huge.
I think math is a hugely creative field, because there are some very well-defined operations that you have to work within. You are, in a sense, straightjacketed by the rules of the mathematics. But within that constrained environment, it's up to you what you do with the symbols.
We might be the holographic image of a two-dimensional structure.
I'd say many features of string theory don't mesh with what we observe in everyday life.
We are living through a remarkably privileged era, when certain deep truths about the cosmos are still within reach of the human spirit of exploration.
As scientists, we track down all promising leads, and there's reason to suspect that our universe may be one of many - a single bubble in a huge bubble bath of other universes.
The math of quantum mechanics and the math of general relativity, when they confront one another, they are ferocious antagonists and the equations don't work.
It's hard to teach passionately about something that you don't have a passion for.
Over the centuries, monumental upheavals in science have emerged time and again from following the leads set out by mathematics.
The full name of string theory is really superstring theory. The 'super' stands for this feature called supersymmetry, which, without getting into any details, predicts that for every known particle in the world, there should be a partner particle, the so-called supersymmetric partner.