Towards a unified theory (of Superman's powers)

The better-known quest for a unified theory in physics is outlined brilliantly here by Professor Richard Healey of the University of Arizona is a talk to the LSE entitled A World without Particles or Forces

The MP3 is here, it last lasts 80 minutes and is great gardening listening.

I was struck by the parallels with the quest for a unified theory in economics outlined by Paul Kruguman in the talk I mentioned here.

And by this - the quest for A Unified Theory of Superman's Powers. Apparently stand-alone theories in this field have problems too:

Since Time immemorial, man has sought to explain the powers of Kal-
El, a.k.a. Superman. Siegel et al. Supposed that His mighty strength
stems from His origin on another planet whose density and as a result,
gravity, was much higher than our own. Natural selection on the planet
of krypton would therefore endow Kal El with more e cient muscles and
higher bone density; explaining, to rst order, Superman's extraordinary
powers. Though concise, this theory has proved inaccurate. It is now clear
that Superman is actually ying rather than just jumping really high; and
His freeze-breath, x-ray vision, and heat vision also have no account in
Seigel's theory.

In this paper we propose a new uni ed theory for the source of Su-
perman's powers; that is to say, all of Superman's extraordinary powers
are manifestation of one supernatural ability, rather than a host. It is
our opinion that all of Superman's recognized powers can be uni ed if His
power is the ability to manipulate, from atomic to kilometer length scales,
the inertia of His own and any matter with which He is in contact.

Bravo Ben Tippett, HT: Megan McArdle

Graphic: capedwonder.com


Related Posts

. Absolutely top notch listening - Paul Krugman, Mark Scott

. Can economists be funny?

Read more >>

How is it that some propositions become accepted as true...

...even if they're not.

And how is it that evidence to the contrary gets buried?

It's all in this chart →

Here's the fascinating paper from the British Medical Journal that uses a citations network to examine the question:

How citation distortions create unfounded authority

Steven A Greenberg, Harvard Medical School

Objective: To understand belief in a specific scientific
claim by studying the pattern of citations among papers
stating it.

Design: A complete citation network was constructed from
all PubMed indexed English literature papers addressing
[a belief]. Social network theory and graph theory were used to
analyse this network.

Results: Unfounded authority was established
by citation bias against papers that refuted or weakened
the belief; amplification, the marked expansion of the
belief system by papers presenting no data addressing it;
and forms of invention such as the conversion of
hypothesis into fact through citation alone...

The same sort of thing doubtless happens in journalism as well as in academic citation, and has probably happened through time immemorial in gossip.

Econophysists study this sort of thing. We need their insights, and others.

HT: Julie

Read more >>

The physics of peer pressure

Bracks. Listens. Acts. Econophysists have a cynical view of elections. They say that's the way the evidence falls. I explained on Life Matters this morning that according to econophysists Jozef Sznajd and Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron from the Polish Academy of Sciences and also Dietrich Stauffer from Cologne University a 'signature' in the pattern of voting at elections matches that found in the alignment of metal filings. The metal filings get that pattern through the simple decision-making rule of each aligning itself in the same direction as most of its nearest neighbours. In other words, the filings decide their alignment based purely on the alignment of the filings they happen to rub up against. They don't decide based on the strength of an argument.

There are circumstances in which the strength of an argument does matter for magnetically-charged particles. It is when they are in solution, and they cluster around 'seed particles'. The most convincing particles build up the biggest clusters. But the 'signature' pattern of the distribution of alignments that results is completely different to that that we see in the results of human elections.

Peer pressure appears to matter when we decide to vote. Considering the issues does not.

Bruce Schechter, the author of the New Scientist article concludes that "there's only one way to be sure that our future elections are not determined by the opinions of our neighbours. We need to abolish the right to free speech: it's undermining democracy."

Perhaps he is right. Perhaps we need secret and silent deliberation of the issues, in the same way as we need a secret ballot.

Then again, perhaps our decisions about how to vote at elections are no different from any of our other decisions. (Whether to buy Levi's jeans etc.. etc.) Most of the "decisions" we make may in reality be no more than simple responses to simple stimuli. Our minds may invent a rationale after the event to make us feel that we are in control.

Inventing explanations might be the hardest work that our conscious mind does. A bit like a section of the bureaucracy that devotes most of its effort to proving that it actually has work to do.

Just a thought... or perhaps a simple response to stimuli, or perhaps an explanation for a simple response to stimuli.

Read more >>

The mathematics of inequality

That was the title of this week's discussion on Life Matters with Geraldine Doogue.

Two French physicists believe they can explain why in every society the distribution of incomes follows the same mathematical pattern.

The arguments are best sumarised in New Scientist.

There is not a lot to add except that it'll pay to follow the work of the new "econphysists" closely.

Read more >>