On time
Having read your special issue on time (8 October, p 37) I’d like to share my understanding of it, which is simple. Time does not and cannot exist for the following reason.
We talk about and experience time as the past, present and future. To me, the past and the future are made up of a continuous stream of present moments in time. But what makes up a moment? A minute, a second, an attosecond, half an attosecond? Perhaps this means the present shrinks to nothing.
In that case, the conclusion is that the present does not exist, and is merely a construct of our consciousness. The past and future are back to back with no present at all; in which case there can be no past or future either, only consciousness.
Perhaps time should be spent in determining how the four fundamental forces of the universe gave rise to consciousness. Now that really is a puzzle.
From Jeff Clarke
The discussion of what time is made me realise the problems of describing difficult concepts with commonly used language. In his contribution, Stuart Clark touches on the mechanisms of clocks, and says they “tell us that time is inextricably linked somehow to change” (8 October, p 38).
The word “change” describes a temporal concept, indicating a difference occurring over time. This word cannot be liberated from the general understanding of time as we know it.
Manchester, UK
Neutrino reaction
I would like to suggest a much simpler explanation for the velocity of neutrinos exceeding that of light (1 October, p 6). All electromagnetic vibrations are slowed by matter. Even in “empty” space, there are still a few atoms and charged particles. Therefore, there can never be a precise experimental determination of the value of the speed of light – c – using light.
In fact, since transient electron-positron pairs are continually being created in a vacuum, it follows that even an absolute vacuum would slow down light a little. All the OPERA experiment shows, I think, is that neutrinos, and not light, allow for a more precise measurement of c.
From Bob Ladd
Your editorial on the “faster-than-light” neutrinos betrays a physics-centred view (1 October, p 5). You say it has “been a while since the last proper scientific revolution” and that “our generation has never experienced a rethink of the kind that quantum theory and relativity provoked”.
Doesn’t plate tectonics count? Maybe all the ferment in molecular biology and genetics since the structure of DNA was determined, or in cognitive neuroscience since the advent of brain imaging, can properly be seen as normal scientific progress. But the discontinuity in geology between 1965 and about 1975 is, to me, as clear an example of a Kuhnian revolution as you’re going to find in any generation.
Edinburgh, UK
From Jasper Elgood
I wonder if anyone has recently measured the speed at which Einstein is spinning in his grave. Perhaps if he achieves sufficient speed he can go back and revise his theories.
Dolgellau, Gwynedd, UK
• The editor writes:
This might be difficult to measure, not for reasons of quantum uncertainty, but because Einstein was cremated.
Intelligent idea
So, one of the US Republican presidential hopefuls claims that intelligent design is “a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science class” (17 September, p 5). Most scientists would fight this. However, this is a battle we are losing, and I want to suggest a new tactic.
As an evolutionary ecologist, I am happy with the demand to include intelligent design – and its central principle of irreducible complexity – in science lessons, as long as we accept that it has been tested hundreds of times as a scientific theory, and each time has failed.
Let’s teach it in the way I was taught about Lamarckian evolution – as an outmoded theory that has repeatedly failed even the most basic scientific testing of its key principles. This may be the way to finally see it off.
Job creationism
I enjoyed Steven Newton’s article on the desire of young-Earth creationists to gain credibility and influence by attending meetings at the Geological Society of America and presenting papers and talks (8 October, p 30).
However, I was dismayed to read Newton’s job description: he is the programmes and policy director for a not-for-profit organisation devoted to defending the teaching of evolution in schools. That such an organisation is necessary is a crying shame; I hope he won’t take it the wrong way when I say, I wish he could be put out of a job.
Pie-crust cosmology
Your article on the big snap theory (24 September, p 8) implied that as the universe expands it does so consistently in all dimensions: the diagram showed a two-dimensional space-time being stretched. But we regularly read in 91av that there could be 10 or 11 dimensions.
What if, as the familiar dimensions of x, y, z and t expand, some others contract to keep the amount of information constant? The model of the universe could then be likened to a lump of pastry, which, as it is rolled out and expands horizontally, gets thinner vertically.
Peak brain
Following on from your article “A brief history of the brain” (24 September, p 40), if technological societies endure then individual brain capacity beyond a certain level becomes unnecessary, because information can be retrieved through “an outside brain”, also known as a computer.
Now that we have access to all the knowledge in the world, and as long as we maintain enough intelligence to process it, there is no need to actually improve the physical brain.
This magazine proves my point. I no longer have to remember or memorise so many things. If I have a question, or wish to remember something, all I have to do is go back and read the relevant article.
Pirates ahoy!
The rise of the Pirate party is the beginning of a sea change: the communities of the internet entering politics (1 October, p 29). Soon we will see political campaigns shift from billboards to forums and social sites.
I can see the benefits: at some point the traditional politicos and their party structures will desperately attempt to adapt, but it is unlikely they will succeed. The scene will change and young, less cynical people will move in, ousting the old-boy network.
The new politicians will at last be scientifically and technologically literate, to my immense relief. This is just about the only way our planet can escape the looming crisis, and our civilisation move forward. Out with the lawyers and hustlers, hooray for the geeks.
This could be the death knell for end-user licence agreements, digital rights management, the US’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Recording Industry Association of America and the Thought Police. The stranglehold on the free exchange of ideas will be broken. Copyright, which cripples it, will perish or be replaced with an approach that benefits the author and corporate exploiters.
Hopefully, there will be greater transparency, forcing more responsible behaviour from governments and the banks.
What are the drawbacks? Time will tell. We won’t be able to avoid this development anyway; it is driven by generational shift, and is essentially unstoppable.
So breathe in the fresh air. Vote Pirate!
Lost in translation
Your Instant Expert on the atomic nucleus had an introduction stating that the theory of atoms as the base units of reality served us well from the pre-Socratic Greeks onwards, but implied that it no longer holds (1 October).
On the contrary, we are still bound by the Greek concept, it is just that we got a name wrong. The Greek idea that matter is made of tiny things that cannot themselves be divided, the a-tomic (which translates as “not able to be cut”), is the basis of the standard model of particle physics. The problem is that we used the word “atom” too early in the history of physics, applying it to things far too big and fragile, such as the base units of each chemical element.
What the Greeks, and Newton for that matter, would recognise in modern physics as “atoms” would be quarks, leptons and gauge bosons. So far, anyway.
Natural food
In her letter on lab-grown meat, Ingrid Newkirk makes a false comparison between eating meat and using tobacco, when she says that meat eaters, “like smokers trying to quit tobacco, find it very hard to give up the stuff” (24 September, p 39).
Humans are omnivores by nature so meat is a natural part of our diet, whereas tobacco use is not natural. There is, however, a case to be made that some people consume more meat than is good for both their health and that of the environment.
Car cacophony
I find it difficult to understand why people are insisting that electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles must be made to sound like petrol and diesel-powered ones (Feedback, 1 October). There are millions of people whose lives have been blighted by traffic noise outside their homes.
At first, we were jubilant at the thought that this soul-destroying and health-threatening noise was going to be phased out, only to find that so many people are now pressing to have it reinstated.
For the record
• Vanillin and iso-vanillin are not molecular rearrangements of benzaldehyde, as stated in our quantum biology feature (1 October, p 34).