I think it’s because he’s working SO CLOSE with _reality_..

I saw that -and if you remember, he seemed somewhat surprised at the results and he updated his charts dutifully but still had a slight note of skepticism to his voice, as it seemed to pull a *little* away from super-symmetry but seemed that it _could_ be reconciled with the new data, as it was definitely within the realm of supersymmetry prediction.. just a little, not-quite.

I thoroughly enjoyed the lectures. He gave it all teeth and reminded me of a few things I had forgotten about.

I also loved his anti-reductionist approach in the second lecture. The tendency among most seems to be ‘less and less variables’ but his thing is, “No, we’re going to need more” and explained quite well why.

That makes more sense to me, rather than the super-duper-‘we-got-this-physics-thing-licked-now’ attitude of a number of theoretical physicist’s popular books seem to show.

I think it’s because he’s working SO CLOSE with _reality_… stuff like trains passing by, messing up the results, rather than just in the realm of the purely mathematical and theoretical. His thinking has real teeth to it.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

− two = 7

Leave a Reply