Why is Science so Serious?

If you've ever read a scientific paper, it probably looks something like this:

Recall that G is a compact, connected, simply connected, semisimple Lie group
of rank n. Let T ⊂ G be a maximal torus in G. Letting t denote the Lie algebra of T, we have T ≃ t/Λ, where Λ = π1(T) ≃ Zn. Let Tˆ be the dual torus to T, defined as Tˆ = t ∗/Λ ∗. Let t1 , . . . , tn be a basis for Λ and t1, . . . , tn the dual basis.Using H1 (T , ˆ Z) ≃ Λ, we identify t1 , . . . , tn with a basis of 1-forms on Tˆ. Similarly t1, . . . , tn define a basis of 1-forms for T. The projection π : G → G/T is a principal
torus bundle of rank n and has a Chern class c ∈ H2
(G/T, Λ). Using the basis t1, . . . , tn , we write c = ci ti, where ci ∈ H2(G/T, Z). This defines a twisting class κ = ci ` t i ∈ H3 (G/T × T, ˆ Z).

(credit to DAVID BARAGLIA AND PEDRAM HEKMATI just in case I might be sued for stealing someone's discovery.)

I have no doubt that these guys have done an excellent job in their paper, figuring out something cool that could plausibly intrigue all the rest of us.  But it doesn't.  Why?  It doesn't because its illegible.  All I understood from reading that introduction excerpt was Lie Group (whatever that is), algebra (a nightmare for most of us), and a torus (like my morning donut?)  After doing a lot more research on the topic, I learned that this paper is talking about how toruses (like donuts) can rotate and twist in space, which is pretty cool.

Why do papers have to be so serious?  They have to be because it gives them a bit of secrecy, a bit of mystery, and most importantly, it gives the work value.  For example, three men named Alpher, Bethe, and Gamov wrote a paper (actually, only Alpher and Gamov wrote it, Bethe was Gamov's friend and his name was added as a word play on the first three letters of the greek alphabet.)  Although they had groundbreaking work, both scientists and non-scientists scoffed at the paper as not profound work just because the paper wasn't as serious as it was supposed to be.  Another example is a paper named General second order scalar-tensor theory, self tuning, and the Fab Four.  Journals forced the last part of the name of the paper to be removed as "the Beatles had little to do with Physics" and all references to the band had to be removed .  Thankfully, the original copy still exists on ArXiv, an archive.  All links will be provided at the end of the article.

With science so serious, we are dissuading the next generation from entering the fields as science is purposely making the field unavailable to commoners.  As Tyler DeWitt points out in his TED talk, by telling a story about bacteriophages instead of just saying in fancy terminology their function, kids are much more interested in science.  Science needs to realize that keeping their work secret doesn't increase respect for it but instead decreases understanding of it.

Links:

"Alpha Beta Gamma" paper : http://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.73.803

Fab Four paper : http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.2000v2.pdf

Tyler DeWitt's TED talk : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OaIdwUdSxE

Why Yugioh has gotten out of hand

When I was 6, I saw my first anime show; yugioh, and I was hooked.  I forced my parents to buy my set upon set of yugioh cards to play.  And I still do play occasionally, but this is probably the end.

Yugioh was fun because it combined aspects of intellectual card games and trading card games.  It is an extremely complicated rule set to learn, and playing requires high amounts of strategy.  If you look up chaining, for example, one will find hundreds of pages of documentation on how to properly use the chain.  The cool aspect about the game was that you had the ability to remove luck by creating combos no matter what you draw.  And, you have no idea of what cards your opponents have.

Now, this is was all during the peak of the game, which was around 2002.  Since then, its been on the downfall.  The reason is that Konami, the creator of the game, is making the game cheaper and cheaper.  Here's why.  Back in 2002, there were normal cards and these cards called fusion cards, which had a slight advantage over normal cards.  Everyone purchased a lot of  fusion cards, but after one point, everyone was content and sales went down.  To increase sales, Konami created a new genre of cards called Synchro cards, which were much stronger than fusion cards.  Now, all the people who were content with their fusion cards had to buy Synchros to keep up with the new game.  Konami did this again in 2010 with xyz monsters, and now they are trying to do it AGAIN with these new monsters called pendulum monsters, which completely ruin the strategy of the game because once one draws these monsters, its game over for the opponent, no matter whatever combos they have.

By bringing money into yugioh, Konami has messed up the best aspects of the game.  Nowadays, when people play, they say, you must not have any pendulums or xyzs or synchros.  This is unfortunate because it hurt the fans, and Konami as many have run away from the game due to this.  Konami has made a big mistake.

Was Brian Cox Wrong?

Recently, I watched Brian Cox, a well known physicist, on a TV lecture called Night With the Stars.  Here's a link to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TQ28aA9gGo.  

The lecture was quite fascinating, as Brian is well known for making physics available to all.  But, Brian might have stepped too far by oversimplifying one of the greatest achievements in physics history: Pauli Exclusion Principle.

The Pauli Exclusion Principle basically says that every fermion (particles with half integer spins) has 4 quantum numbers, numbers that describe it, and no two electrons can share the same 4 numbers.  The numbers are quantum "spin" (not actually the spin of the fermion, no one knows what quantum spin looks like), energy level, azimuthal quantum number, and the magnetic quantum number (in simple terms, describing its magnetic properties.)

In the presentation, Brian Cox basically ignored all of the quantum numbers except for energy levels (formally known as principal quantum number) and made it seem as if everything was connected as mentioned in some religious philosophies.  After the presentation, many people started talking about how quantum mechanics "supports" the idea that everything is spiritually connected and we are connected with god.

Many physicists accuse Brian of messing up the meaning of quantum mechanics by oversimplifying it and allowing scientific spiritualists to make absurd comments.  Brian published an article to cover up his blunder and to explain how uncertainty due to the observer effect and the uncertainty principle (also very often confused, I'll make a post about that one too) make it impossible for a "spiritual connection".

Was Brian Cox wrong in simplifying Pauli Exclusion Principle?  In my opinion, he isn't because he just was trying to make it easier for non-physicists to understand and appreciate.  Imagine him trying to explain quantum spin when we don't even know what it is!  Sure he had a few technical errors but he shouldn't be criticized as much as he is.