If an idea doesn't sound ridiculous the first time you hear about it - it has no chance. - Albert Einstein
Will it one day be possible to walk through walls? Build spaceships that can travel faster than light? Read people's minds? To become seen and not seen? Move objects with the power of thought? To move our bodies in space immediately?
Since I was a child I have been fascinated by these questions. As an adult, I was fascinated, like many physicists, by the possibility of time travel, laser guns, force fields, parallel universes and similar ideas. Sorcery, fantasy and science fiction served as a vast breeding ground for my imagination. They ignited my long love affair with the impossible.
I remember watching a rerun of the old series Flash Gordon. Every Saturday I was glued to the television, full of wonder at the adventures of Flash, Dr. Zarkov, Dale Arden and their stunning collection of futuristic technology: rockets, invisible shields, laser guns and cities in the sky. I didn't miss a single episode. The series opened a new world for me. The thought of looking at an alien planet and exploring its surface excited me greatly. My attraction to these fantastic inventions made it clear to me that my destiny was somehow involved in the wonders of science that the series depicts.
It turned out I was not alone. Many respected scientists got their start in science after being exposed to science fiction. The great astronomer Edwin Hubble was fascinated by Jules Verne's books. After reading Verne's book, Hubble abandoned a promising career as a lawyer, and, against his father's wishes, developed a career as a scientist. Hubble ended up being the greatest astronomer of the twentieth century. The imagination of Carl Sagan, a prominent astronomer and successful author, was ignited by reading the book series John Carter of Mars by Edgar Rice Burroughs. Like John Carter, he too dreamed that one day he would explore the sands of Mars.
I was a child when Albert Einstein died, but I remember that people talked about his life and death in a quiet voice. The next day, I saw in the newspaper a picture of his desk, on which was a manuscript of his unfinished and most important work. I asked myself what could be so important that the greatest scientist of our time could not finish it? The article claims that Einstein had an impossible dream, a problem so difficult that a mere mortal could not solve it. It took years until I was able to discover what was written in this manuscript: a comprehensive and unifying theory "of everything". His dream - in which he spent the last three decades of his life - helped me focus my imagination. I wanted, in my humble way, to take part in the effort to complete Einstein's work and unify the laws of physics into one and only theory.
As I got older, I began to realize that although Flash Gordon is a hero and that he always wins the girl, it is the scientist who makes the series successful. Without Dr. Zarkov there would be no rocket, no trips to Mongo and no saving the world. Heroism is important, but without science there is no science fiction.
I realized that these legends are simply impossible based on known science, and that they are simply the product of a developed imagination. Growing up meant letting go of all those fantasies. In real life one must abandon the impossible and embrace the practical.
However, my conclusion was that the realm of physics is where one can continue to be fascinated by the impossible. Without a solid foundation in advanced physics, I could forever cling to the hypothesis that futuristic technologies exist, without understanding whether they are actually possible. I realized that I had to immerse myself in the studies of advanced mathematics and theoretical physics. And that's what I did.
My project for the high school science competition was an atomic accelerator that I built in my mom's garage. I went to Westinghouse and collected 180 kilos of steel from scrap electrical transformers. During Christmas I wrapped 35 kilometers of copper wire in the school football field. In the end I built an electron accelerator called a betatron, with an energy of 2.3 million electron volts, and a power of 6 kilowatts (the total output of my house), which produced a magnetic field 20,000 times stronger than the Earth's magnetic field. The goal was to create a beam of gamma rays that would be strong enough to create antimatter.
My project in the competition got me to the national science competition and ultimately made my dream come true - winning a scholarship to Harvard - where I could stick to my goal: study theoretical physics and follow in the footsteps of my idol, Albert Einstein.
Today I receive e-mail from science fiction authors and screenwriters who ask me to refine their stories by testing the limits of the laws of physics.
The "impossible" is relative
As a physicist I learned that many times the "impossible" is a relative concept. I remember that when I was a child one day my teacher turned to the world map on the wall and showed us the coastlines of South America and Africa. Isn't it a strange coincidence, she asked, that the coastlines of the two continents fit together, almost like a puzzle? She said that some scientists speculate that they were once part of one huge continent, but that idea sounds silly. There is no force that can separate two mighty continents. Her conclusion was that such thinking is impossible.
Later that year we learned about the dinosaurs. Isn't it strange, asked the teacher, that the dinosaurs have been on the earth for millions of years, and one day they just disappeared? No one knew why they became extinct. Some paleontologists thought that maybe a meteor from space killed them, but that's impossible, more like science fiction.
Today it is known that the continents move in a process called plate tectonics, and that it is very likely that 65 million years ago a meteor with a diameter of 10 kilometers wiped out the dinosaurs and most of the life on the surface of the earth. Over the course of my short life I have repeatedly seen what was considered impossible become solid scientific fact. Therefore, is it impossible to think that one day we will be able to launch ourselves from one place to another, or build a spaceship that will one day take us to the stars light years away?
Today's physicists would say, for the most part, that such acts are impossible. But will they be possible within a few hundred years? Or in ten thousand years, when our technology will be more advanced? Or in a million years? In other words, if we somehow meet a civilization more advanced than ours in a million years, will their everyday technology look like "magic" to us? This is one of the central questions in this book: Will something remain impossible in hundreds or even millions of years just because it is "impossible" today?
Considering the extraordinary achievements of science in the last century, and especially the formulation of quantum theory and general relativity, it is possible to roughly estimate when, if at all, it will be possible to realize some of these technologies. The emergence of more advanced theories, such as string theory, allows physicists to re-evaluate ideas on the border of science fiction, such as time travel and parallel universes. Think of the technological achievements in the last 150 years that the scientists of the time declared to be "impossible", and are now part of everyday life. In 1863, Jules Verne wrote the book Paris in the Twentieth Century, which was hidden and forgotten for more than a century, until we both discovered it by accident. In the book, which was first published in 1994, Verne predicted what Paris would look like in 1960. His book is full of technology that was considered impossible in the nineteenth century, including facsimiles, a global communications network, glass skyscrapers, gas-powered cars and high-speed hovercraft.
Verne's predictions were, unsurprisingly, incredibly accurate because he was well versed in the world of science and could understand the scientists around him. A deep appreciation for the basics of science allowed him to formulate such amazing predictions.
It is unfortunate that the position of some of the most important scientists of the nineteenth century was the opposite, and they declared many technologies as hopeless. Lord Kelvin, who was probably the most important physicist of the Victorian era (he is buried next to Isaac Newton in Westminster Abbey), declared that flying machines "heavier than air", like airplanes, were impossible. He thought X-rays were a fraud, and that there was no future for radio. Lord Rutherford, who discovered the atomic nucleus, dismissed the possibility of building an atomic bomb, calling it nonsense. Nineteenth-century chemists declared the search for the Philosopher's Stone, a legendary substance that could turn lead into gold, a scientific dead end. The chemistry of the nineteenth century was based on the eternity of the elements, such as lead. But today, with the help of particle accelerators, it is in principle possible to turn lead atoms into gold. Think how fantastic today's computers, internet and televisions would have looked at the beginning of the XNUMXth century.
Black holes were once considered science fiction. Einstein himself wrote an article in 1939 that "proved" that blacks could never be created. And yet, the Hubble Space Telescope and the Chandra X-ray Observatory are currently discovering thousands of black holes in space.
These technologies were considered "impossible", because in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the fundamental laws of physics were unknown. If you take into account the great gaps in the understanding of science at the time, especially at the atomic level, it is no wonder that such achievements were considered impossible.
Research the impossible
Ironically, a serious study of the impossible has in many cases opened to rich and unexpected areas of science. For example: the frustrating and fruitless search, over the course of hundreds of years, for "perpetual motion machines" (perpetuum mobila) led physicists to the conclusion that such machines are impossible, which forced them to hypothesize the conservation of energy and develop the three laws of thermodynamics. Thus, the fruitless search for perpetual motion machines helped open up the completely new field of thermodynamics, which laid some of the foundations for the invention of the steam engine, the machine age, and modern industrial society.
At the end of the nineteenth century, scientists decided that it was "impossible" that the earth had existed for billions of years. Lord Calvin specifically declared that the molten Earth needed 20 to 40 million years to cool, contradicting the claim of Darwinian geologists and biologists that the Earth may be billions of years old. Eventually the impossible was proven possible, after Madame Curie and others discovered nuclear power, showing how the center of the Earth, heated by radioactive decay, could remain molten for billions of years.
We run the risk of ignoring the impossible. Robert Goddard, one of the pioneers of the modern rocket age, encountered fierce criticism in the 20s and 30s from those who thought that rockets would never be able to move in outer space. They sarcastically called his attempts "Goddard's nonsense". In 1921, the editors of the New York Times came out against Goddard's work: "Professor Goddard does not know the connection between action and reaction and the need for something better than a void in relation to which to act. It seems that he lacks basic knowledge that is taught daily in high schools." Rockets are an impossibility, the editors reasoned, because in space there is no air against which something can be pushed. It is unfortunate that there was one leader who understood the consequences of Goddard's "impossible" rockets - Adolf Hitler. Germany launched advanced V-2 rockets during World War II, which brought death and destruction to London and almost caused it to surrender.
It is also possible that the study of the impossible changed the course of world history. In the 30s there was a widespread opinion, shared by Einstein, that an atomic bomb was "impossible". According to Einstein's equation E=mc2, physicists knew that there is a huge amount of energy deep within the atomic nucleus, but the energy released by a single nucleus is very negligible. But the atomic physicist Leo Szilard remembered that in 1914 he had read The World Goes Free by H. G. Wells, in which Wells predicted the development of the atomic bomb. Wells stated in the book that the secret of the atomic bomb would be discovered by a physicist in 1933. By chance, Szilard came across the book again in 1932, and this spurred him on. Indeed, in 1933, just as Wells had predicted some twenty years earlier, Szilard discovered the idea of increasing the power of a single atom by chain action, so that it would be possible to multiply the energy from fissioning a single uranium atom many trillions of times. Szilard promoted a series of key experiments as well as secret contacts between Einstein and President Franklin Roosevelt, which led to the Manhattan Project, which led to the construction of the atomic bomb.
Over and over again it can be seen that the study of the impossible opens up completely new possibilities, expands the boundaries of physics and chemistry and forces scientists to redefine what they mean by "impossible". Sir William Osler once said, "The philosophies of one age become the nonsense of the next, and the folly of yesterday becomes the wisdom of tomorrow."
Many physicists believe in the saying of T. H. White, who wrote in the King of Yesterday and Tomorrow, "Everything that is not forbidden must exist!" In physics you can find evidence of this all the time. If there is no physical law that explicitly forbids the existence of a new phenomenon, eventually it is found to exist. (This has happened several times in the search for new subatomic particles. Often, by testing the impossible, physicists have unexpectedly discovered new laws of physics.) It is very possible that T.H. White's statement that "whatever is not impossible must exist must exist" !”
For example, the cosmologist Stephen Hawking tried to prove that time travel was impossible by searching for a new physical law (his he called the "chronology conservation hypothesis") that would prohibit it. Unfortunately, after many years of hard work, Hawking was unable to prove this principle. The opposite is true - physicists have already demonstrated that a law that does not allow time travel is beyond the capabilities of current mathematics. Today, since there is no law preventing the existence of time machines, physicists have to take the possibility of their existence very seriously.
The purpose of this book is to check which technologies are currently considered "impossible", but could be common in a few decades or a few centuries.
There is already one "impossible" technology that has been proven to be possible: the idea of teleportation (at least at the atomic level). Only a few years ago, physicists used to say that sending or launching an object from one point to another violates the laws of quantum physics. The writers of the original Star Trek television series were very hurt by the physicists' criticism, and they added "Heisenberg stabilizers" to explain the operation of their teleporters and thus correct this flaw. Today, due to a recent breakthrough, physicists can launch atoms across the room or photons under the Danube River.
predicting the future
There is always a risk in predicting things, especially things that will happen hundreds or thousands of years from now. Physicist Niels Bohr liked to say, "It's very difficult to predict things, especially about the future." But there is a fundamental difference between the time of Jules Verne and these days. Today, the basic laws of physics are practically known. Today's physicists understand the fundamental laws that operate over an incredible number of forty-three orders of magnitude - from the internal structure of the proton to the expansion of the universe. Physicists can thus confidently describe the broad outlines of future technology, and better distinguish between technologies that are merely improbable and those that are truly impossible.
For this reason, in this book I divide the "impossible" things into three categories:
– The first category includes what I call the I group of impossible things. These are technologies that are not possible today, but do not violate the known laws of physics. Therefore, it is possible that they will be possible, in one form or another, in this century or perhaps in the next century. They include teleportation, antimatter engines, certain types of telepathy, psychokinetic and invisibility.
– The second category is what I call the II group of impossible things. These are technologies that are at the very edge of our understanding of the physical world. If they are possible at all, it may be possible to accomplish them in thousands or millions of years. They include time machines, the possibility of space travel and travel through wormholes.
– I call the third category the III group of impossible things. These are technologies that violate the existing laws of physics. It is surprising that there are so few impossible technologies. If it turns out that they are possible, this will lead to a fundamental change in our understanding of physics.
I feel this classification is important, because scientists claim that very many technologies in science fiction are clearly impossible, but in fact they mean that they are impossible for primitive cultures like ours. For example, scientists generally claim that alien visits are impossible because the distances between the stars are enormous. But while interstellar travel is not possible for our civilization, it may be possible for a civilization hundreds or thousands or millions of years ahead of us. That is why it is important to rate these "impossible" things. Technologies that are impossible for our civilization are not necessarily impossible for other civilizations. Statements regarding what is possible and what is not must take into account technologies that are thousands or millions of years beyond our reach.
Carl Sagan once wrote, “What does it mean that a civilization is a million years old? We have had radio telescopes and spacecraft for several decades; Our technological civilization is a hundred years old... a civilization that is millions of years old advances in relation to us as we advance in relation to the macaque monkeys."
My professional research focuses on trying to complete Einstein's dream of the "theory of everything". Personally, I am quite excited to work on the "final theory" that will eventually answer some of the most difficult "impossible" questions today, such as the question of time travel, what is at the center of a black hole, or what happened before the big bang. I still daydream about the love story of my life with the impossible, and wonder if and when some of these impossible things will enter our daily lives.
61 תגובות
An intelligent point of view, well expressed! Thanks!
Hanan Sabat:
It really doesn't matter how much you try to dissuade me from this: I will continue to act logically!
The honorable Mr. Rothschild and the other detractors and those who attack the book and what is written in it - or those who attack [Prof. Kaku] using the classical method (since they cannot attack his claims):
Scholars,
When you reach his position and when you expose and develop theories such as he developed including the theory of the Miiters), then you will be in the proper position to attack his claims and present him as ignorant, as seeking publicity, etc.
Until then, you have to agree, learn, and maybe one day you will be able to understand the depth of the subject he raises in his book...
As they wrote in "Zhu Zh" before Kaku and over 20 years ago: "Combine lasers and phasers to combine the Schmaizers"...
Boaz, thank you very much, I just bought the fabric of the universe today! I think it's a very good book. What bothers me is that many astrophysics or physics books in Israel are not translated. Not bad lol If you have any more to recommend I would be very happy!! )(+:
Thank you!
Lalon will also read Prof. Brian Green's Fabric of the Universe
recommended!
And Yoram Kirsh's book/ definitely a good physics book! A little more in-depth than normal popular science.
Company I have a question
Which books are the most correct or fascinating in the field of astrophysics and physics?
What books do you recommend for me to read, something that will take me in a different direction? I have already read The Universe According to Modern Physics by Yoram Kirsch and Mizio Kaku The Impossible Physics, but I am still looking for a book that will take me to a completely different place. I would be very happy if you could give me some names of Very good writers or books...thank you very much
For deer and deer
Has it ever happened to you that you were arguing about religion and the religious opposite sent you to study a little in a yeshiva so that you would understand the subject?
Well I didn't excuse myself and I didn't go because my time is precious and I don't think I have to understand things about Borim in order to draw conclusions about them.
There are basic things that we all understand. This is the language we all speak and I can tell even through the window if someone speaks the language I know or not. And in the language familiar to me it is written that "if the measurements do not fit the formula then there is a problem with the formula and not with the measurements". point. And this is true for every formula and even for Newton's holy gravitation formula. It fails to come up with results suitable for measurements in spiral galaxies and even for measurements in the entire intergalactic universe. If so, where is the problem with the measurements or the formula??? And here they have been deciding for eighty years that the problem is in the measurements and not in the formula, and then they change the measurements by adding to the measured results of the mass.
Unfortunately, the conclusion must be that the measurements are perfectly fine and the problem is in the formula. Maybe change it, or maybe throw it away and look for another, but it's obviously flawed!
I don't know what Michio Kaku would say about that, but I believe he wouldn't have disdained the idea.
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Some comments about the article after reading the book:
Despite all my earlier criticisms, I read the book - although I didn't buy it, but when I saw it at a friend's, I decided to read it despite my earlier position.
The book divides the impossible things into three types:
1. Things that are technologically impossible but probably possible in principle - such as: invisibility, teleportation, mind reading at one level or another, etc.
2. Things that are not clear if possible - time machines and so on...
3. Things that, as far as we know, are impossible, and if they are possible, it means that we have really missed something - for example, a Perpetum-leader.
The book was written by Michio Kaku, who is undeniably a smart man, and if there is any doubt, during the course of the book he emphasizes again and again that he is very smart (at least three times he talks about a particle accelerator he built for some kind of competition in high school).
By the way, he emphasizes in the book (Yidyat Yehuda) that as a child he was interested in science in fiction and to know what is possible and what is not - he went to study academic physics because that is the way!
Yet,
Throughout the book, I felt that his main purpose was to create the feeling that science is frozen except for a few visionaries (he constantly emphasizes - at that time there were people who thought it was impossible, but...) and the problem was that in everything I knew from another source - I had the feeling that he did not say the whole thing The truth - he only says the sensation, the shiny thing and ignores a lot of other things.
I don't think he's ignorant. I think he understands very well that what he is doing is not "fair" - that he puts the emphasis on shiny and rejected corners of the border between science and medical science, and this at the expense of the "bread and butter" of science and I have no doubt that he is writing an article as "Professor Kaku" And not as "Kaku the writer" - he wouldn't drive like that.
Therefore - Yehuda's claim as if I underestimate him even though he is much more knowledgeable about physics than I am is not true. I have no doubt that he knows physics, but I feel, based on the knowledge I have, that what he presents is not what he knows but what he thinks the reader wants to read - even at the cost of the authenticity of the article.
I will end with a small quote by Feynman from the book "Light and Matter" (highly recommended by the way) that will clarify my meaning:
"Usually I would rather discuss those parts of physics that are well known than those that are not well known. People often ask about the latest developments... they want to know things that we don't know ourselves. Instead of bringing you together with half-baked theories, only partially explained, I would rather present you with a carefully chosen topic."
Yehuda,
If I wanted to attack I would. but I do not.
I will try to explain the point again:
A man stands outside an event hall with transparent walls. He knows one language, but much wisdom in his head. If he manages to focus on one of the guests who are close to him - near the glass window, the man will be able to read the movement of the guest's lips and will be able to guess what was said. But there are several problems. 1. In this hall there are multitudes of guests speaking different languages, 2. From the outside you are aware of very few people, only those who are close to you, 3. Even of those who are close to you, you understand only a few because of the multitude of languages, a problematic thing since you are not aware of the many and complicated connections between speakers the different languages.
Another person, on the other hand, decides to enter the hall instead of standing outside and trying to guess what is happening inside. The present man is exposed to new languages and learns them and gets to know the other people one by one. While wandering in the hall among the guests, he discovers that the dimensions of the hall from the outside looked much smaller and that now he is having trouble estimating the dimensions of the hall, let alone the number of guests and with them the existing languages. However, he discovers and understands more and more as he continues to wander inside. Then and only then does he look back in time and realize how far he was in some of his thoughts, how little he saw and above all what a waste of time it was to stand outside and think in one language, as it is well known that sometimes the language is what drives the thoughts.
And again, good luck in whatever way you choose.
Thank you for sharing.
It was really important for us to know what you believe.
Hello everyone
To Eyal A. Regarding your comment from June 1.6.2010, XNUMX
I don't find it appropriate to waste three years of my remaining life to study something I don't believe in just to satisfy some opponents of my words who I believe will continue to oppose even after my studies..
Agree with B5 from comment 38, the progress of science also belongs to those who dare to think against the current. Their renewal will usually be very significant.
Agree with Alon from comment 47.
And you, the readers of the science, pay attention to what mass of slander you put Kaku through, and claim that he is just looking for sensations. When I see your behavior towards him then why should I go to study for years?, just to satisfy the inflated ego of some of you. After all, even then you will say that I do not understand anything and am looking for a sensation, as you claim about Mitsio Kaku. And if, as we will see, everyone who comes forward with opinions that are not acceptable to the consensus is attacked by you, then the problem is not those who raise the ideas but those who attack those who raise ideas. Mitsu Kaku is made of the stuff of daredevils and feels strong enough to ignore naysayers.
And again, if a respected professor like him is attacked by some of you I really feel good about myself and my opinions. I'm sure Mitsu would not laugh at my opinions, although he may not agree with some of them.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Believes that dark mass and energy do not exist
that the speed of light is decreasing over time
And some other strange things
alon:
The only difference between you and the commenters who killed the book is that they do understand the subject.
Besides, you should reduce the number of your spelling errors.
No matter how much the book presents itself in a slightly exaggerated way, most of its words are logical from a physical point of view. It's not just that he wrote the book with the help of dozens of the best physicists in the world!! What he says in general is to open the imagination. The book does appeal to a public that does not understand sweets and physics or optics, etc. He gives you amazing ideas and much simpler explanations, by the way if you look at Kaku's past you will understand what a brilliant man he is, he Understands so many topics that none of you do!! Physics is an open mind and there is no end to the questions, that's what's amazing, without the surveys and questions he would present in the book, no one would have asked you to check them. We need people like him!!, what's strange is that he didn't talk about DMT, only in the last few years are we trying to understand why it was created at all It's my life. Haha, in any case, everything makes sense!!
controller,
I guess you are right. The way I interpret this 'prophecy' of Nostradamus, I would say that it refers to the number of geniuses. That is, there will be so many geniuses who will call this period... 'the millennium of geniuses'.
I guess Nostradamus meant that the wars in the world would stop and a period of 'boom' in the field of knowledge would begin. (Not necessarily in science, I suppose, but mainly from an individual point of view. That is, the person will become disillusioned, and there will be many, thanks to the fact that their minds will turn to other things besides 'thinking' about survival and fighting for their place in nature).
As mentioned, 'prophecy was given to fools', and I, as a fool, can afford to prophesy.
R. H. Rafa. Yam,
Each millennium is the 'millennium of the geniuses' in relation to the millennium that preceded it.
Mr. Kaku does not innovate anything, physics has always operated in the realm of the impossible, from the invention of the wheel to space flights and everything in between. Is there another area she should be working in? The possible already exists, so what is left if not the impossible.
I think there is a place for popular science books of varying levels of depth.
There are books that provide a glimpse into the world of scientists by way of refinement, which usually must come at the expense of accuracy. There are those that are intended to be an introduction to the field and that encourage the reader to delve further. I agree that in many cases a considerable amount of the author's self-deprecation also permeates the book.
There are individuals of virtue that in themselves constitute worthy books that, along with being readable to the general public, have a depth and innovation in them that surpass in importance even many scientific works. In this category I would put the books of Richard Dawkins mentioned here, the books of Douglas Hofstetter and even Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species (could he actually be the inventor of the genre?). I would appreciate additional recommendations that you think fall into this category...
I also wanted to mention Yuval Neman's books on an introduction to modern physics and the particle hunters, which are a readable and interesting introduction even for people with very little background in physics (they are an example of excellent books in which the author does not sin in self-glory even though there is certainly something to glory in, and which did not receive much public relations )
R. H.,
According to the principle of Ockham's razor - I just made the simplest assumption.
B5 Who is afraid of colleagues? Who fears the limits of science? Who is an expert only on the tip of the proton? Have you ever wondered where the GPS came from, all the NMR cars in the hospitals, the computers, the engineered bacteria drugs and all the other wonders that surround us? Is it from narrow-minded and cowardly people? The conclusions that people like you state are facts without any incredible skepticism. Have you thought about going into politics?
deer,
As a physicist you need to check your assumptions more. For example, everywhere the time is 3:30 at night 🙂
B5,
I understand from your words that you read the book and deduced from it exactly the cheap and shallow message that we were warned about in the correspondence.
Just as Michael said about the scientist's popularization books (32), you concluded that the author is a very smart man - moreover, you also managed to conclude (or actually get a tree to hang on to your pre-known position) that most of those involved in science are narrow-minded idiots. By the way, this conclusion is very popular among the many charlatans of the world, since it justifies their choice to learn nothing.
I think at this moment you have convinced me not to read the book because if you got the right message, it is exactly the cheap and fraudulent bestseller I thought it was.
As for leaving the sealed room and discovering the impossible, there are countless commenters on the site who discover it every day.
It's a shame that there aren't more scientists like Kaku who are willing to test the limits of science without fearing the reaction of colleagues - most of whom have a tiny vision, not to mention tiny, limited to their expertise at the tip of the proton.
The book is recommended to all readers and commenters of the science website. Maybe he will help you finally get out of the closed room, open your mind, develop humility and discover the impossible.
Who knows, maybe one day it will be discovered that the flying spaghetti monster is absolutely real and very hungry...
Aww….
I see that they are working late into the night here and I'm having a hard time catching up with you (-:
RH – 3:31 – it's really impressive.
In any case, I feel that our intentions have been clarified.
In conclusion, I wanted to say that as of today I really enjoy reading popular science books if they are good (I will use Michael's terminology - popularization of science and not of the scientist). History books about science are indeed a successful solution for touching on complicated issues, without committing to an impossible scientific explanation (the two books by Simon Singh that were mentioned do this in an excellent way - I have not read "The Big Bang" but I have also heard recommendations about it).
R.H. - I agreed with your statement about the need for books for the intermediate level - I feel that I would enjoy them very much and indeed there are none.
In my opinion, it could be useful to perhaps add a place on this website where references from the website commenters to popular science books they have read will be displayed.
Ghost,
I had no intention of offending you, although my reaction was rather harsh (perhaps too harsh). If so, I feel that there is a certain point that almost all the commenters here are trying to get across to you and you insist on not internalizing:
In your response number 28 (to which I responded) you hinted that some of the discussion participants (R.H., Noam, Ehud and I) are mistaken in thinking that they are smarter than the public. In this response I will speak for myself, but it seems to me that all three others will agree with me.
During my youth I discovered, probably like you, an interest in nature and the way it works - I was interested in other things, but in the end I chose to study physics at the university - believe me, these studies (like all other academic studies) require a lot of effort, but on the other hand they definitely advance your understanding of physics .
I do not believe that I am superior to you or smarter than you or the public - I simply think that the question of physical understanding also requires knowledge and not just pure intelligence.
Isaac Newton, who apparently had a greater physical intuition than both of us, labored throughout his life (except for the times when he was engaged in alchemy) on conclusions that today a student in his first year at university learns and understands. The knowledge of the true answer has a great influence on the human ability to develop the appropriate intuition, and therefore science is constantly developing even through the marginal contributions of people, who are not Newton, Maxwell or Einstein.
I don't think I'm smarter than you, I really have no ability to determine such a thing, but I do understand that I have a considerable advantage over you and over most of the public in understanding physics and this for objective reasons, I chose to invest my time in acquiring this knowledge and that's how I learned what people had already thought in the past Smarter than me (the majority, I also understood), while others chose to invest their time in acquiring other knowledge (which is lucky, otherwise I wouldn't have, for example, a doctor to turn to when I'm sick).
In other fields, in which I have not invested years of learning, I would prefer to listen to the opinion of those who understand more than me and at the most ask stupid questions - I have no pretensions to understand something that I have not invested the required effort in learning.
In my opinion, the purpose of the science site as well as many other platforms including popular science books is not to teach science without effort because this is not possible, the purpose is to allow people who have not chosen science as their profession to hear a little about the new in the field and to allow interaction between them and other people who may know the subject a little more.
This site does not have the tools to test serious new scientific theories (there are no people here who are capable of testing theories written by professionals) and in any case such are not put forward, what is more, there are people who have sufficient understanding to reject out of hand the obviously wrong theories that are put forward on it.
God,
I would also add Fermat's Last Theorem and The Music of the Prime Numbers talking about the Riemann Conjecture as popular science/history of science books that I really enjoyed reading.
What is missing are books for the construction level that will explain in a deeper way, including formulas, but will not go into detail like in professional articles. For example, those who know in English the biology books by Scherer Darnell and others.
Haha ghost what's up with you, are you real?
Have you read two and a half popular science books and already understood everything?
Let me quote you some of Socrates' words:
"All I know is that I don't know."
"The only real wisdom is knowing that you know nothing."
"Stupidity is for a person to think that he knows what he does not know."
And in other words - the more you learn, the more you know how much more there is to know, and how much you really don't know.
If you think you know everything, you probably know nothing, or at least not enough.
Ghost:
Are you starting again?
Zvi understands about a million times more than you and you have to think a little more to understand why it became a mouth for example and the wit that is used every time you want to demonstrate a person talking about things he has no idea about.
Zvi (who studied physics at university and knows everything that Newton and Einstein knew and also some things that were not yet known to them) presents himself as a layman because his standards are simply thousands of times higher than yours.
deer
A simple and ignorant layman like you (as you say) maybe jealous of a fool like me?
You have been studying for years what Newton and Einstein understood a long time ago, and you, like many other laymen, still have trouble understanding what it is all about. Maybe this is where your jealousy of me comes from that I didn't have to study much to understand what they claim?
Apparently my words (opinions) really undermined the foundations of science as you know,
And push the limits of your human understanding.
I don't come to disparage you or anyone, but your disparagement of me requires me to respond to you as well.
(I really think this response is unnecessary, but I don't intend to blame anyone here).
R.H.
I think putting the blind watchmaker and the shortening of the history of time on the same side of the fence does Dawkins an injustice.
Those who read The Blind Watchmaker understand exactly what Dawkins is saying.
Most of the people who read the "Abridged History of Time" will only be able to put a V next to the book's title and maybe know how to quote phrases like "the arrow of time" from it.
These two books show exactly the difference between the popularization of science and the popularization of the scientist.
I assume that most readers of "A Brief History of Time" have come to the conclusion that the subject is so incomprehensible that it is a shame to go into it and it is better to just pretend to understand it. They also concluded that Hawking is terribly smart. That is why it is a popularization of the scientist (the specific one - not of the figure of the scientist) and not of science.
I also think that it is certainly possible to write more fascinating books on classical physics.
The example offered by Zvi is enlightening (literally) I think you can write a nice book on the subject.
In fact the name of the book is so attractive that it has already been used for another topic "unweaving the rainbow" written by Dawkins and many have read it.
I think Dawkins is really a tremendous popularizer of science.
In my opinion, very beautiful books can be written on many topics in classical science.
Some were also written that were successful such as "Feynman's lost lecture".
This is a beautiful example where the name of the scientist is used to entice the reader to get closer to science - exactly the opposite of what Michio Kaku does who uses the name of science to draw the reader closer to himself.
I can imagine super interesting and accessible books on subjects like the kinetic theory of gases.
It is possible to get the public to read them - either through an attractive name or through the name of an attractive author.
There are also books that popularize science without deluding the reader that he understands what we do not understand and without discouraging him if he realizes that he does not understand even though it was as if it was explained to him.
The example you gave E=MC^2 is a good example of such a book because it does not pretend to teach science but only a history of science.
There are many good books in this genre and I think they are very effective.
There is a lot of power in thinking "I want to resemble this man" or "I also want to take part in such an adventure"
sympathetic,
Your analogy about the news is interesting and it is possible that this is how human psychology works, in any case I feel that a scientist who writes a book should show a greater degree of responsibility than the last of the journalists. Still, on second thought, the comparison is not so good if you note that a person who reads a newspaper every morning will not be considered a person who understands history - and who is interested in history, will probably read a real book and not just newspapers (which serve a different purpose) - you could perhaps compare the newspapers to scientific monthlies and those, Most popular science readers don't.
R.H.,
I do not rule out science fiction, but if Hawking wants to write science fiction he will admit it and I will appreciate it very much - what is important is the separation.
ghosts,
Of course, when we refer to the public that lacks scientific education, we are not referring to brilliant theorists such as yourself who, without any formal scientific training, succeed time and time again in undermining the foundations of science and shattering the limits of human understanding. We mean the simple and ignorant laymen like us who, without years of toil and hard work at the university, had difficulty getting to the bottom of nature's mind and therefore needed the reading of popular science books in our youth.
R.H
Did I tell you I think I'm smart?
I know I'm not smart (maybe I'm wrong).
The problem is that you think you are smarter than me, and that is already your problem.
deer,
First of all, marketing is not only a negative thing. Depends on what is marketed and how it is done. If it's for good causes in an entertaining way then I see nothing wrong with marketing.
One of the factors that most attract people to science is science fiction stories. Many of them are not based or are based on controversial theories and still they bring a lot of interest. Will you dismiss them too? In my opinion, the line between summarizing the history of time and science fiction stories is very thin.
Ghosts, someone who pretends to talk about hidden dimensions, photons that jump from dimension to dimension, anti-photons and the like for those without even studying basic physics should take a beam from his eyes when he talks about people who think they are smart.
The mistake is to think that the public is stupid.
This usually happens to those who think they are smarter.
deer
You are interested in popular science books that will describe classical physics, but this goes against human psychology in my opinion. Why it's similar: try to sell people history books instead of the news. The historical research is more grounded and thorough than what is described in the news, it is not always accurate, the whole picture is not always presented and the information is not always complete (many times the situation is the opposite), but try to sell the public newspapers with news from a week ago... the same is true in science, human psychology is interested in the new.
By the way, there is a genre of popular science books based on established science. This genre consists of books that describe the physical basis of everyday phenomena. There are also popular science books that describe the history of science
For example E=Mc^2 by David Boadnis who, although he is not a scientist, wrote a beautiful book. He also has a book on electricity that I haven't had the chance to read yet.
I find it hard to agree with your words.
I don't pay money to buy an advertisement and in fact I think that the attitude according to which everything should be marketed - leads in this case as in many other cases to mental shallowness (do you get to watch TV?).
The books you described (Newtonian mechanics, waves and fields and vector equations) definitely sound like professional literature and the reason popular books should not be read like that is simply because for the general public such names are not informative because they do not know what vector equations are.
You ignore a very central point in my words -
I have no problem with information being transmitted in a simple way (at the expense of accuracy) to the general public, this is all well and good and from this point of view, Prof. Hersgur Physical would be a desirable phenomenon.
My problem is that theories such as multiple dimensions, time travel, etc. - which are not yet complete and proven scientific theories are passed on to a wide public that lacks basic concepts in physics.
This is equivalent to the fact that Prof. Hersgaard will deal half of most of his programs with unproven historical conspiracy theories and ignore the known and agreed upon history - if he does so, he will lose my respect for him.
Zvi, I do not agree with the penultimate paragraph. Science needs to be marketed like any product if we want to attract the best to it.
You come to a bookstore, in front of you are three huge shelves full of books such as "Reading thoughts in five lessons", "Communication and discovering the future", "Bermuda triangle for advanced students" and many more books that look fascinating on the surface. And believe me I even read some of them. In front of them is a poor shelf at the end of the store with "Newtonian Mechanics", "Waves and Fields" and "Vector Equations". What do you think they will be called???
Therefore, there is no choice, and even if "The Short History of Time" or "The Blind Watchmaker" contain some inaccuracies or superficiality, they are essential and necessary.
Another example is Prof. Har Segor who lectures on the radio about history. There are many complaints about superficiality and inaccuracy, but he made many people understand that history is a fascinating and exciting thing no less and in fact much more than all those stupid telenovelas.
In conclusion, for me, the popular books are a sales promoter for science and as such they must touch on the most strange and controversial esoteric points that will make the curious boy think "maybe I can solve the problem of dark matter?".
R.H
I, and I believe that Noam also read popular science literature in our youth because the subject matter interested us - I can testify for myself that the matter certainly played a significant role in my choice to go and study physics at a later stage of my life.
Furthermore, my choice to write comments on the science website, itself indicates my tendency to understand the need to bring science closer to the public.
even though,
As someone who has received scientific academic training, I assume that you know that there is a huge disparity between the degree of exposure that certain fields receive and the degree of their scientific correctness. An instructive example of this is string theory, to which for the last 20 years every popular science book has taken the trouble to devote considerable sections to it - even though in academia it is a very innovative field and as far as I understand it is very questionable (it is worth noting that my understanding of the subject is very small, among other things because in all my years at the university it was not mentioned The subject even in one footnote - but the fact that the field is innovative to the point of not being mentioned even for 20 years is to testify to something perhaps).
I don't know about you, but this disproportion bothers me.
The main argument you make is that it is permissible to attract people to a field even with side and shiny topics provided that they are attracted to it, the question for me is whether as a teenager you would have come across popular science literature about classical physics - would it not have attracted you?
Classical physics, or the established modern physics that are not full of very interesting phenomena for which no explanation can be given at all. During high school, I once heard in a lecture that was not part of the school about the development of the rainbow phenomenon - this is something that can be presented in a popular science book intended for high school students (perhaps even in a Rahmana Litzlan textbook) and very interestingly, the presentation of the relative relationship between electricity and magnetism is also something that no book Popular science does not present and is also an amazing thing when you first encounter it.
I do not think, therefore, that in order to interest the reader it is necessary to escape into unproven esoteric areas - I think that there is a desire to flatter him in a cheap way, to present him with a false representation as if he now knows what is happening at the forefront of science - this is exactly the thought that promotes the Najazim The different pages of the site present time and time again theories concerning the correction of general relativity or the standard model and never argue with the existence of the Coriolis force (another interesting classical phenomenon!).
By the way, in high school, I read the father of pop science fiction of the type I'm talking about - aka "A Brief History of Time" and I felt that I didn't understand what he was talking about - I'm afraid that if I read it again today I'll feel the same,
Now I might have the tools to understand (which Hawking doesn't emphasize enough) what is probably true and what is nothing more than a preliminary theory.
R.H.
In response No. 18, write specifically:
"Popularization of science is a welcome thing, but it also has disadvantages"
Of course, this does not mean that popular science fiction is a bad thing...
Noam and Zvi, I really do not agree with what you say. The importance of popular science books is enormous. In a world haunted by demons like Sagan's article, when there are daily lectures of the "x-ray" on the one hand and the "callers" on the other, the voice of sanity needs to be heard. If a high school student is only exposed to the moldy studies at school and tests on Newton's laws and compared to them he is promised to become a Reiki master by studying within two weeks and then he can heal from cancer, it is clear what his choice will be. That is why the importance of the books for making contact and bringing the "man on the street" closer to science and what is happening in it is enormous, therefore they too must deal with the most exciting and most imaginative things even if they are controversial and at the expense of accuracy. Later at the university he will learn the details. I know, because that's how I got into science.
deer,
I agree with every word, and with your permission I will add another comment:
The desire to explain complicated things in a simple way, often causes real deception, which makes it difficult for those who want to delve into the subject.
It is enough to look at the set of explanations and examples for special relativity, some of which are simply not true.
Indeed, there is no escape from an orderly and quantitative study of the classical theories and only then beyond a quantitative study of the more advanced theories.
Regarding Yehuda - I have a different opinion.
Although his theories are not theories at all, they have no quantitative basis and no theoretical basis, he is still not satisfied with presenting his opinion in one blog or another, but also lectures in front of an audience, thus doing a very disservice to the promotion of popular science.
I suggested to him in the past, to invest effort and try to establish his ideas in a mathematical way, so that it would be possible to take his ideas seriously, but apparently the desire for self-publicity outweighs his desire (or ability) to propose something more serious.
Noam,
I think you spoke very nicely about the problematic nature of popular science books,
The existence of popular science books that convey some of the science to the people for whom it is not their profession is a beautiful and good thing, and I have no doubt (as Roach Raim pointed out) that this also brings the interest of young readers who, in the coming days, may in part become scientists.
The problem is when popular science books create the illusion among readers that familiarity with the concepts in them allows the reader to deal with the scientists as equals and replaces the fundamental (and quantitative!) learning of these fields.
I don't think there is any real problem with this because no sane person would adopt Yehuda's theories as equal to the accepted cosmological models (I'm not putting you down Yehuda, but without a quantitative basis - i.e. equations, calculations, etc., no one will be able to seriously examine your theories).
What is here is deception and holding the reader's eyes - as if the author is revealing to him the facade of science when in fact he is merely reciting concepts accompanied by flat and simple interpretations.
Personally, I believe that popular physics books (I understand something about physics, so I'll talk about it...) should deal more with classical physics (mechanics, electromagnetism and thermodynamics) about which there is a lot of ignorance, it is hardly discussed at all in popular scientific literature and its results we encounter in our lives ( and therefore we have a degree of intuition about them).
Practicing proven modern physics (relativity and quantum) is possible, but without a classical basis this is very problematic - also, in my opinion, importance should be given in these fields to experimental information and less to theoretical knowledge, since in these fields there is and cannot be almost intuition (because these are things we cannot see) and on which physicists depend Even more in the mathematical considerations.
Even worse is the engagement in fields "at the forefront of science" such as: string theory, time travel, multi-dimensions, parallel universes and the like in those flashy topics on which the vast majority of professionals do not even agree -
Presenting them to the general public, in a way that is not really qualified as a footnote, is therefore tantamount to real charlatanism.
to love
In connection with your question (16) regarding Lord Calvin's assessments.
Lord Kelvin and a German physicist named Hermann von Helmholtz proposed towards the end of the 19th century, a proposal according to which the sun's illumination energy originates from the gravitational energy of the contracting gas cloud, in this way they arrived at the estimate that the age of the sun is approximately 20 million years , this time estimate conflicted with what geologists believed at the time and this led Lord Kelvin to calculate the life span of KdHA by cooling times.
It is worth noting in this context two things to the credit of Lord Kelvin:
1. Rathford, one of the first researchers of radioactivity, studied the effect of the decay of radioactive elements on the Earth's temperature, in 1904 he delivered a speech at the British Royal Institute in which he convinced Lord Kelvin of his mistake. After that, Lord Kelvin admitted his public mistake and even paid Riley an intervention fee of five shillings (this is based on the book "To the Stars" by the Israeli Prof. Felix Dotan - which is by the way the best popular science book I've read so far).
2. The mechanism proposed by Kelvin and Helmholtz according to which the potential gravitational energy is converted into thermal energy is not far-fetched at all and in fact, the formation of a star occurs precisely on the basis of this process - a large gas cloud shrinks under the influence of gravity and in the process heats up (the "hayashi track") - The process stops when the gas cloud reaches an internal temperature of about 7^10 degrees and then the nuclear fusion processes begin and the gas cloud becomes a star in the "main series".
Popularization of science is a welcome thing, but it also has its drawbacks.
Even on this site, there is a nice example of someone who read popular science books as a child, and when he grew up, he didn't realize that behind every scientific theory there are serious mathematical formulas that support the theory.
This lack of understanding causes him to try to invent illusory scientific theories for the future, without having a minimal knowledge of mathematics and physics.
This is of course a very undesirable result.
On the other hand, if there were no people like him, and there were scientists in the world who only spoke in 'scientific language' such as mathematical equations and formulations and did not write books in 'friendly language', how many children would read these books (in 'scientific language') and would be interested in science ? I would bet that without people like him the number of scientists and researchers in the world would decrease from generation to generation.
Maybe he is doing publicity for himself (like the other leading scientists in the world, led by Hawking) but what does it matter? All in all, he helps the world by having children who read his books and some of them also become interested in science in this way, and an even smaller part of those children grow up to be scientists.
In my opinion, there is something beautiful in Kaku's attempt to map the limits of science and the limits of technology. On the other hand, there is a danger that a non-professional audience will confuse science with science fiction. It is very important to make clear to the general public the difference between science and fantasy and it gives the impression that the above book falls into this trap.
One of the things I find wrong with popular science is that the writers are not always knowledgeable about the details and thus convey misleading information to the public. I think even Kaku is wrong on this point. Regarding the explanation he gives about the possibility of teleportation. The thing that is transferred in the quantum teleportation experiments is the quantum state and not the particle itself. Again, the particle itself is not transferred from point A to point B, as Kaku describes it, but the information about the state of the particle is transferred. For example, we have an atom with spin + (spin direction in z-axis direction) and we transfer the spin state to a distant atom while the original atom changes its spin state.
Question: Regarding the dispute between Lord Calvin and Darwin and his supporters regarding the age of the earth, I think that in addition to calculating how long it takes for the earth to cool, Lord Calvin also estimated the age of the sun based on the fact that it is a burning gas cloud and found that its age cannot exceed a billion years and therefore a globe The earth cannot be between several billion years old
Honorable Sabdarmish Yehuda,
I partially remember pages on the site from the past where you expressed your ideas as you mentioned here.
I also remember the impression you gave me that you are not a physicist.
Here is a man who also had ideas and passions in the fields of physics. And he realized that just dreaming will not advance him. So he got up, studied, and now he can talk and write a book on physics.
My apologies if you are a physicist. And if you are not, then jump into the deep water. At first they are a little cold. But if you swim well enough, then after three years you will be able to get out of the water as a different person. You can test the ideas of before jumping into the water even while swimming. Some of them you will reject with a wave of your hand and even in self-embarrassment, and the other part you can examine later or at some stage be helped by others. Currently, if you are not a physicist, you can continue to suggest ideas in the fields of physics. But you cannot claim the degree of their success and you also cannot claim the degree of success or failure of existing physical theories.
This michio means macho impossible
For anyone interested in adding a visual layer to what is called,
A 12-part series was released that presents the ideas raised in the book
in a spectacular and bright way. It is called, how surprising:
"Physics of the Impossible"
This is the list of episodes and their contents:
1. How to Explore the Universe
2. How to Travel to a Parallel Universe
3. How to Blow Up a Planet
4. How to Teleport
5. How to Become Invisible
6. How to Travel through Time
7. How to Build a Starship
8. How to Build a Light Saber
9. How to Build a Sci Fi Robot
10. How to Become a Superhero
11. How to Build a Flying Saucer
12. How to Build a Force Field
Available on the nearest download site for your computer, in HD of course
This micho is right...
Michio Kaku is a very successful person in terms of his ability to make physics popular, also through books, but mainly through appearances in scientific series by the BBC Discovery and National Geographic, but it seems to me that with this book he went too far....
But he knows that these things stimulate people's imaginations and create expectations, and he builds on the fact that the very expectation of the people will lead to the fulfillment of his prophecies about the future.
I read Michio Kaku's book in English. He came out over a year ago.
The book is excellent for children. My older son really liked Michio Kaku's books and today they are already easy for him. Kaku flattens the science into a friendly layer. It removes the complexity and depth from it, so the book is suitable for children and can bring them closer to science and arouse their curiosity and introduce them to science. Kaku writes in a very simple way. Scientific American (which is semi-popular science) is at least a few difficulty levels above Kaku. And it shows that there are different degrees to writing accessible science. Kaku makes science accessible to children and people who have no idea about science. It is just right for the Discovery channel on TV.
Although it was Einstein who said that: "If an idea doesn't sound ridiculous the first time you hear about it - it has no chance", but I would still allow myself to say that a significant part of the great scientific ideas I have come across sound so simple and logical that you are actually surprised that no one thought of it About that first.
In the spirit of Michael's words, I often feel that the writers of popular science books, no matter how great scientists they are, sometimes have a tendency to discuss very flashy topics (sometimes still without solid foundation) with a public that lacks much basic knowledge - perhaps in order to attract an audience and there is I have the impression that Micho Kaku (like many others, such as Stephen Hawking for example) is guilty of exactly this.
It is true that Kaku is a scientist, but it is also true that in recent years he has been more involved in self-publishing while relying on the public's desire for sensationalism (I also saw him reflect on the 2012 issue and express himself in a way that, although it was not completely false - also left an opening for delusional people to hang on to his words).
Here, too, he exaggerates and is precisely aimed at receiving the applause of Yehuda and his ilk. He knows that some of the hopes he spreads are false hopes but what does it cost him? He just gains readers.
Yehuda:
I suggest you contact him and show him your bullshit.
I suppose that despite his desire to sell the book he will not be able to avoid bursting into laughter when he sees them.
Is Michio Kaku a scientist?
Let's see. From Wikipedia:
"Kaku currently holds the Henry Semat Chair and Professorship in theoretical physics and a joint appointment at City College of New York, and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, where he has lectured for more than 30 years. Currently, he is engaged in defining the "Theory of Everything", which seeks to unify the four fundamental forces of the universe: the strong force, the weak force, gravity and electromagnetism. He was a visiting professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and New York University. He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society. He is listed in Who's Who in Science and Engineering, and American Men and Women of Science."
Yehuda,
"If an idea doesn't sound ridiculous the first time you hear about it - it has no chance"
But it is a difficult logical error to conclude that any idea that sounds ridiculous the first time you hear about it - has a chance.
In fact, most ideas that sound ridiculous the first time, are indeed ridiculous later on.
Think about it.
I think the story about the transformation of the transformers is Richard Feynman's. Maybe he wrote the introduction?
He just watched a lot of STARTREK (TNG) the way I see it.
I grew up on TNG
who watches the watchers?
Michio Kaku is a kind man, I don't know how much you can call him a scientist.
Could it be that Nostradamus was right?
The next millennium is going to be the 'millennium of geniuses'.
This cacao 'discovered' the foods didn't it?
What utter nonsense to think that what drives the galaxies is pressure differences and gravity is a joke
What nonsense to think that the cosmological principle is just a soul being and nothing more
What nonsense to think that once the speed of light was greater and tomorrow it will be less
What nonsense to think that there is no dark mass, no dark energy, and only the night is dark
What nonsense to think... what nonsense to think..
Thank you Michio Kaku for an interesting book
Just like that, a dream hypothesis for a long night
Please respond gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda