mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
According to our esteemed editor Neely, the topic of our upcoming cover story is “really huge, intimidating, and rather scary-sounding” — but no, it’s not part of our Halloweek festivities. It’s all about Big Ideas: string theory, deconstruction, postmodernism, the theory of relativity, and some exotic idea in economics that Mangesh is referring to as “the Black-Scholes equation.” And our goal is to make all of this hyper-intellectual stuff a lot less huge, intimidating, and scary-sounding. So — that said, what should we cover? What Big Ideas — field-changing, paradigm-shifting, big-word-using stuff — would you like us to make some sense of? Tell us in the comments, and if we like your suggestion, we’ll put your name in the magazine.
I’d like to know more about quantum computing and true cost economics.
Always thought that the inside out universe is an interesting big idea:
From Wikipedia:
Martin Gardner discusses the hollow Earth model articulated by Abdelkader. According to Gardner, this theory posits that light rays travel in circular paths, and slow as they approach the center of the spherical star-filled cavern. No energy can reach the center of the cavern, which corresponds to no point a finite distance away from Earth in the widely accepted scientific cosmology. A drill, Gardner says, would lengthen as it traveled away from the cavern and eventually pass through the “point at infinity” corresponding to the center of the Earth in the widely accepted scientific cosmology. Supposedly no experiment can distinguish between the two cosmologies. Martin Gardner notes that “most mathematicians believe that an inside-out universe, with properly adjusted physical laws, is empirically irrefutable”. However, Gardner rejects the concave hollow Earth theory, not as disproven, but instead entirely on the basis of Occam’s Razor.
posted by john on 10-27-2006 at 3:52 pm
After democracy - what then?
This old creaky Greek invention may be the best method for ‘humanaging’ that we have uncovered to date but it does appear to be getting a little frayed around the edges.
Are there any signs of hope for those who yearn for a post-democracy system of governance that will be better able to ward off the unpleasantries of corporate abuse, special interests and the politics of money?
Maybe we should call it ‘greenocracy’?
Just what could that look like?
posted by Alan on 10-27-2006 at 3:54 pm
How about chaos theory? The explanation in Jurassic Park was kind of overshadowed by the t-rex.
posted by janet on 10-27-2006 at 3:58 pm
I’d like to hear a plain-English explanation to that old “Monty Hall” problem. Marilyn Von Savant and Cecil Adams have tried to explain it, but every time I see it, I get confused.
For those who don’t know: You’re on “Let’s Make A Deal” in a hot dog costume. You’re offered three doors, behind one of which is a car/vacation/house (I don’t know if it matters, really; it just has to be worth a lot), and choose #1. They open door #3, and a weak prize is revealed. You’re asked if you want to switch to door #2. Should you? The answer is apparently “Stick with #1,” but to me it looks like you have an equal chance of winning whether you switch or not.
posted by Sillstaw on 10-27-2006 at 4:03 pm
Sillstaw — with the Monty Hall paradox, imagine the same problem but with 100 doors. You pick one, and Monty eliminates 98 leaving just yours and one other. Do the odds of Monty’s door look better in this scenario? Now think the same way on a much smaller scale. The odds of switching are diminished with only 3 doors, but it’s still slightly better.
(Hope that made sense — I’m typing fast before I leave work)
posted by EV on 10-27-2006 at 5:00 pm
Sorry stillsaw. Didn’t read your post fully. Actually, the answer is to switch and pick #2. (I’d assumed that’s what you’d said when typing my previous post)
posted by EV on 10-27-2006 at 5:03 pm
The writings of Jacques Derrida. Scary.
posted by Becky on 10-27-2006 at 5:57 pm
The BIG bang theory, what was before it?
posted by Adam on 10-27-2006 at 6:19 pm
I completely agree with Becky!
How about clarifying Lacan’s work too?
posted by Michael on 10-27-2006 at 6:57 pm
The speed of light is the same from all inertial frames of reference.
That would suggest that if I am traveling in a space ship at the speed of light (c) and I flip on my headlights, I could theoretically measure the light leaving my ship as c. An observer on the ground would measure the speed of both my ship AND my headlights as c.
This is a tough concept for the mind to grasp (c + c = c, therefore c = 0, huh?). Can you make this make sense?
While you are at it, is light a wave or a particle? It has properties of both (frequency, responds to gravity, etc.).
posted by Idsquid on 10-27-2006 at 8:44 pm
I would like to know more about the anticipated point of singularity when artificial intelligence becomes self-replicating.
posted by Jim Hudson on 10-27-2006 at 11:00 pm
I’ve always wanted to know the science behind harmonics (musically speaking, of course), especially how there can be one point 2/3rds of the way up a vibrating string that stays stationary; and why that proportion stays the same if you lengthen or shorten it.
posted by Heather on 10-29-2006 at 12:59 am
What is the space-time continuum?
What’s surrealism all about?
posted by Alison Bates on 10-30-2006 at 10:42 am
If it were possible to make it to the edge of the universe, why couldn’t we go outside of the universe? I was trying to explain to my students but I’m not sure I even understand it.
posted by Sara on 10-30-2006 at 1:21 pm
An area that often intimidates at first blush, but becomes easily transparent upon being given a “plain English translation” is heuristics. Once the purview of esoteric philosophy and the occasional bored mathematician, the “problem solving” nature of heuristic algorythms can be used to explain not just how the brain might work, but also open the door to true A.I.
posted by Ed on 11-1-2006 at 2:44 pm
How about determinism?
posted by Sammy on 11-4-2006 at 8:28 pm