Talk:Brian Greene

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

This article is within the scope of the Columbia University WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Columbia University, her schools, environs, and people. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article is part of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of education and education-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low importance within physics.

Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] lol

What the heck. "His book The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory (1999)...was a finalist for the Nobel Peace Prize in nonfiction." and "His father, Alan Greene...later worked as a hunting coach." I guess I'll change it. Neurotic Jacobin 15:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] science fiction

Why should an encyclopedia not be entertaining to a certain degree, as was e.g. the Encyclopedia Britannica in its former and first years ? I welcome all these contributions very much as they show that not all people fall for the self-promotion of some string guy who had results only on a mathematical field. BG9123


The Uneducated drivel that emanates from much of this talk page is rather amusing. Why are you arguing about completely subjective things? I have been in Dr. Greene's class at Columbia, the complexities of it do not even begin to rival the idiotically complex arguments under debate on this page.

[edit] in your face

There is no way that he could rise to the academic level he has without being brilliant; however, the claim that at the age of 5 he could "quickly multiply 30 digit numbers" together in his mind is false. I never heard of the guy before tonight (I am watching his show on Nova), but the best child prodigies have ever done is multiplying 5 digit numbers together rapidly. Do you have any concept of what 30x30 digit multiplication involves? It is easy enough with a primitive computer, say an 8088, given quite a bit of time. No human could ever even multiply arbitrary 10 digit numbers in their head in minutes. Not now, not ever. Who is the jackass who put in that stuff? Actually I won't wait for evidence. I will delete it now Seminumerical 02:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

there are always some idiots, who try to make themselves feel better by putting in pure nonsense which to some is not directly obvious, and on other message boards they pride themselves how blatant the lack of wikipedia quality is, and so on. just as there are trolls, there are all sorts of people. go figure. If you see something completely stupid, and going against every scientific logic scrap it.Slicky 20:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I attended a public lecture by Dr. Greene where he stated he avoids using any animal products, such as leather, wool, eggs, or milk, whatsoever. He also expressed "concern" about using animals for medical research or testing. Would this attitude not make him a vegan, not merely a vegetarian? Corvus 01:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Green is a vegan.

I read an article about Brian Greene and he is indeed a vegan. He became a vegetarian at a young age, but later became a vegan due to a talk or lecture he attended in New York.

[edit] Vegan as religion

can someone enlighten me by telling me since when is Veganism considered a "religion?" And if it is not, why is it labelled as his religion?

A handful of vegans consider their brand of veganism to be religious because their personally-held vegan beliefs and practices are spiritual in nature, having to do with the sanctity of life or what have you. But the vast majority vegans consider veganism to be not a religion, but a philosophy or an ethic (even if it does tie in with their religious beliefs). Since the religious vegans are in the minority, it seems presumptuous to me to label all vegans as practicing a "religion." 70.184.72.38 01:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Greene is a genius

I have attended many of his lectures and he is utterly a genius. His work on Calabi-Yau manifolds is impressive.

'As brilliant as Einstein.' I second the notion. Professor Greene is genius. The light of both blazing knowledge and innate enlightenment as well as compassion, surrounds his marvelous and wondrous presence and mind. He maintains a great balance keeping his heart in this world, though his vision looks to the greater science and universe. The latter is very difficult to do for most of us even when we dont have a clue about our ignorance. My personal preference is vegetarian which is why I started writing, but now I might just have to give up wools and silks. Sacrifice makes the world and universes go 'round. I attended Dr. greene's lecture and certainly would give anything to attend his classes. Wouldnt everyone?

How does writing two books qualify one as a genius? Sure, Greene did some good work on manifolds and strings, but none of it was earth shattering. He does not come close to Einstein in terms of his ability to decipher the inner workings of the universe. A smart guy, but let's not use the word "genius" too liberally here. Capacitor 04:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Brian Greene really "one of the world's foremost string theorists?" Shouldn't that title be reserved for people like Leonard Susskind and Ed Witten? Writing a few popular science books and being interviewed for Nova do not make you a "foremost string theorist." Sarahjane10784 04:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Brian Greene really is one of the world's foremost string theorists. Microtonal 05:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Says, who. I have no objection, i have reservations though about missing quotes and citation sources making many wikipedian articles sub standart (not that it would matter in this specific case.Slicky 20:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Whether Greene is a genius or not cannot be easily decided. However, his role within the theoretical physics community can actually be measured through the ranking in citations his papers receive. If you look up the last (5-year) ranking of top-cited theory authors at the Stanford University SPIRES database, you'll find that he ranks no. 622. That is a far cry from being foremost, and also tells you he is not be described as one of the "fathers of mirror symmetry" as done in Wikipedia, for that would have placed him much higher in this list. He is certainly foremost in publicizing string theory, but that's it! I therefore advocate to change foremost to "one of the best-known" or something. N.Nahber 07:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I've made this change. To further back up my argument, I mention that unlike Witten, M. Green, Susskind and others B. Greene is not among the other SPIRES list that ranks all-time topcited theory authors.N.Nahber 08:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

'Yes, Brain Green is the smartest man ever'

And just look at his smile.

If Greene wants to be the world's smartest man he's going to have to wrestle Ed Witten in mud for the title.

But remember, Brian and Ed and also the mud itself are supposed to really be just an accumulation of these little vibrating strings....Lestrade 12:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Lestrade
David Hartley (philosopher) was the smartest man ever back in 1749 when he claimed that our mental operations were really the vibrations of little strings. Remember him?Lestrade 13:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Lestrade
Omigod. I'm like, you know, he's so, like, smart, and, like, omigod!Lestrade 18:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Heather Deirdre

'Brian Green is a self-promoting moron'

I'm sorry. You're all stroking Mr. Green like he is God's gift to physics. Have you seen 'The Elegant Universe'? I've seen it once and watched part of it a second time (with my girlfriend: I thought she hadn't seen it so I thought I'd watch it again, but then she realized she had seen it and remembered she hated it. We quickly turned it off). I like how Green can take up so much time talking about the "promises" of string theory, and never actually say what it does now. If string theory this, if string theory that. Get to the point! And where does NOVA get off having the guy host the show and being interviewed on the show??? Come on, that's just bad TV. I think Green's arrogance has eleven dimensions.

I think that it would be wise if you shut up, because Brian Greene is much smarter than you will ever be. (Also the equations in String Theory have no anomalies.)

'Status' OK, I'm pathetic, and don't know how to start a new question/comment. Apologies to the editor above, who I am piggy-backing on.

I have been searching the Internet for HOURS, and cannot find the answer to this question: Is Brian Greene married? Or partnered. (whatever his predilections are)

Every bio I have seen is ruthlessly non-personal. So...what's the story?

Thanks.

He was in the audience of a lecture that I attended this past summer and he was joined by what I presume was his wife and kid. — goethean ॐ 18:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I attended an interview with Greene sponsored by the Smithsonian conducted by Michael Turner in March, 2005. Turner asked about Greene's family, and he said he has a daughter and has lived with her mother for years, but that they are not married. RossPatterson 21:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


It isn't at all clear who that's directed to, so I guess in fact it's not! :-) RossPatterson 21:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

His partner's name is Tracy Day. --GaeusOctavius 20:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

He's not gay?--Loodog 02:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, Tracy is a unisexual name, e.g. Tracy Hickman, but I guess not in this case. –Pomte 07:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cut to Chase

I have to laugh at all this interest in what he eats, whom he fathers, how he looks. Is there no concern with his facile use of metaphors, such as the "fabric of spacetime," in order to inform or misinform the public about the physical world? Lestrade 22:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

I'm more concerned with those who would attack a brilliant scientist solely for being good at communicating effectively with non-scientists. He uses "facile metaphors" because the vast majority of his target audience doesn't know enough calculus to keep up with the jargon of theoretical physics.

I just have to laugh that anyone is even discussing it.

Discussing what?Lestrade 01:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
If what you really mean is that you disagree with Greene's conclusions, well, there are far better venues in which to do so than a Wikipedia talk page. Microtonal 00:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
This being an encyclopedia, it is possible that some people might be interested in those new explanations of the universe and its workings. Microtonal, I suppose that it is acceptable to have an article that mentions that he is a vegan, has a Bacon number, appeared on Comedy Central and also in a film entitled "Frequency." But, it is not acceptable to declare that he uses uninformative metaphors such as "the texture of reality." Lestrade 02:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
I don't have my copy of The Fabric of the Cosmos handy, so I can't tell whether "the texture of reality" is Greene's metaphor or a paraphrase by whomever inserted that sentence into the article.
But to be quite honest, I have no idea what your problem is. Are you dissatisfied with this article as it is currently constituted, or are you actually attacking Greene himself? What exactly do you find "uninformative" about his metaphors, and why is it "unacceptable" to represent Greene's work accurately, if that is indeed the case? Please explain yourself more clearly. Microtonal 08:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The adulation expressed on the Discussion page is puerile. On the Article page, the mention of his dietary habits and his celebrity are trivial. Is Brian Greene working on the solution to some of the most important human problems? Can he tell us what progress is being made? When I am told that there are numerous dimensions coiled into the fabric of the cosmos, I feel as though I am listening to a charlatan or carnival barker. To say that space and time are like a piece of material out of which the universe is tailored seems almost to willfully mislead readers. It is an assertive, declarative reduction of the unknown to that which is commonly known. Readers of an encyclopedia deserve to be warned that all such explanations are not literal. The explanations are absolutely figurative and totally fictional. This issue has more importance than his diet, his Bacon number, and his childhood math skills. But, since it is not discussed, readers may blithely accept the metaphors for the actuality. That is almost purposeful deception. There may be readers of Wikipedia who want to really know the importance of Brian Greene's work. They may not want childish explanations that dogmatically equate very large or small scale objects and events to those of common experience. Is it condescending to explain nature as though it was made of strings and curved sheets of cloth? Should a reader who is puzzled about gravitation contentedly accept Green's explanation of balls rolling on rubber sheets and thereby be excused from any further thought on the subject? I would think that such a Wikipedia article would dangerously affect the thinking of young readers by perpetuating these fictional accounts of the physical world's operations.Lestrade 15:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Your claims amount to a blatant argument from personal incredulity. You're attacking the entire conceptual basis of modern theoretical physics simply because you don't "get" the metaphors used in the field. Describing the unknown metaphorically in terms of the known is not only common, but absolutely crucial for useful communication with non-specialists. It is in absolutely no way whatsoever "condescending" to explain things to non-specialists in terms that they can actually understand, rather than in obscure, opaque jargon that only a small number people use effectively, or even worse, in raw mathematics. Greene's metaphors are backed up by more than 200 years of real-world research and experimentation, and are endorsed by every practicing physicist in the world. The fact that you personally feel "deceived" by such metaphors is not Greene's fault, and it has no place in this article. Microtonal 23:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't want my opinions included in the article. I want the article to honestly express whatever progress has been made by Brian Greene and his fellow physicists. I also want to see the article without metaphor that can be taken literally. Whether I understand the metaphor or not is immaterial. The article should openly express the fact that mere metaphors are being used. Gravitation cannot actually be a curved sheet of rubber. The basic components or the world cannot be strings. The universe cannot have coiled dimensions in a fabric. The probability that these false images correctly depict the actual natural world is infinitely small. To bring closure to the public curiosity by employing such figurative language is a willful deception. How many people today will contentedly claim that the universe is made of strings and that gravitation is a warped fabric of space and time? This is the result of the use of metaphor and analogy such as is found in the article and in Brian Greene's books and television productions.Lestrade 01:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
The answer to your question is "none". There are no people who will contentedly claim that the universe is made of strings and that gravitation is a warped fabric of space and time.
But that's neither here nor there. Let me be absolutely clear: Your entire claim is a blatant argument from personal incredulity, and it deserves absolutely no consideration whatsoever. Microtonal 07:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm tired of this, but I need to say that you have completely misunderstood me. The argument from personal incredulity does not have anything to do with my statements.Lestrade 18:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Cleanup?

Yes, cutting to the chase...the article looks fine. Add veganism if a source can be cited. Yes, not as important as string theory, but interesting. I'm going to remove the tag unless anyone has a specific section that needs cleaning (in which case the tag should be moved to a specific section instead of the whole article) or can change it to a more specific tag. --In Defense of the Artist 00:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)