This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Brian Greene article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Umm...there is no 'nobel peace prize in non fiction'
Willbennett2007 (
talk) 03:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) did you perhaps mean Pulitzer?
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
I could not disagree more. How is Dr. Greene self promoting? He seems to simply be promoting science, something many seem to woefully misunderstand Willbennett2007 ( talk) 12:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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.
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?
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?
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, 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.
'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.
His partner's name is Tracy Day. -- GaeusOctavius 20:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
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 just have to laugh that anyone is even discussing it.
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
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
Has anyone notable criticized him for his metaphors and analogies? He's going to have to use these devices when talking to laymen or the total novice, and if no-one serious has been critical of his particular attempts at explaining these subjects in some broad terms, I don't think it should be added. Gdfgrsegyjhcc ( talk) 19:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
What is wrong with an academic being treated like a celebrity? People treat athletes and musicians like gods, speculating on their diet, hobbies, etc. I think it is high time we have some scientists who are celebrities!
Willbennett2007 (
talk) 03:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
He was mentioned on XKCD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.39.186 ( talk) 04:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else think the intro is a little too heavy on jargon?
"Greene has worked on mirror symmetry, relating two different Calabi-Yau manifolds (concretely, relating the conifold to one of its orbifolds). He also described the flop transition, a mild form of topology change, showing that topology in string theory can change at the conifold point. "
This part strikes me as bad for the introduction part. Maybe it would be better to just cut it back to something like this, if it makes sense? (I'm not a physicist so please correct me If i cut it down badly)
"Greene is known for his work on mirror symmetry, and topology in string theory."
Details of his work appear in the Research section, I think it's fine to have this level of detail in a section, just not in the introduction to a man who is going to be looked up by average simpletons like me, it gave me quite a shock to be thrown in the deep end like that right away.
Gdfgrsegyjhcc ( talk) 18:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I would say the article is about a physicist, most people interested in it probably are fairly scientifically literate, so I don't think the jargon is a problem
Willbennett2007 (
talk) 19:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I propose changing the current Known For (i.e. String theory, The Elegant Universe, The Fabric of the Cosmos) to Popularization of Physics. Is there anything he is WELL known for in the physics community? Hamsterlopithecus ( talk) 23:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
As a skeptic of string theory, I admit that I share concerns of some here regarding String Theory's claims of higher dimensions, especially considering that there are so many models for these higher dimensions that though elements of string theory are falsifiable, and in fact some have been falsified by the LHC (namely, the models predicting micro-blackholes). So I will admit, I do actually have some concerns that potentially, Mr. Greene may be communicating topics which are purely mathematical at best and unfalsifiable/superfluous at worst.
That being said, while I agree with some of the cricitisms on this talk page, I am also concerned that these arguments are not being properly referenced. So to those who are claiming Mr. Greene is duping the public on scientific issues, I'm wondering if someone could bring some reliable third party sources to bear (peer-reviewed or otherwise) that criticize Mr Greene's work specifically. For example, the journal Nature and other scientific journals often publish book reviews on books published in a related field. If someone could find one a critical review such as that, I would be all for creating a criticism section in the encyclopedia entry just to make this article appear less like Mr. Greene is self-promoting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepractitioner333 ( talk • contribs) 01:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Extreme violations of BLP, and nothing of value or relevance to improving the article. This whole page should be trashed. -- Jibal ( talk) 16:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Apparently veganism isnt a choice because this guy believes everything is preplanned. what an absolute ignorant man 73.160.213.63 ( talk) 23:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Brian Greene article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Umm...there is no 'nobel peace prize in non fiction'
Willbennett2007 (
talk) 03:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) did you perhaps mean Pulitzer?
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
I could not disagree more. How is Dr. Greene self promoting? He seems to simply be promoting science, something many seem to woefully misunderstand Willbennett2007 ( talk) 12:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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.
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?
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?
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, 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.
'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.
His partner's name is Tracy Day. -- GaeusOctavius 20:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
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 just have to laugh that anyone is even discussing it.
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
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
Has anyone notable criticized him for his metaphors and analogies? He's going to have to use these devices when talking to laymen or the total novice, and if no-one serious has been critical of his particular attempts at explaining these subjects in some broad terms, I don't think it should be added. Gdfgrsegyjhcc ( talk) 19:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
What is wrong with an academic being treated like a celebrity? People treat athletes and musicians like gods, speculating on their diet, hobbies, etc. I think it is high time we have some scientists who are celebrities!
Willbennett2007 (
talk) 03:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
He was mentioned on XKCD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.39.186 ( talk) 04:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else think the intro is a little too heavy on jargon?
"Greene has worked on mirror symmetry, relating two different Calabi-Yau manifolds (concretely, relating the conifold to one of its orbifolds). He also described the flop transition, a mild form of topology change, showing that topology in string theory can change at the conifold point. "
This part strikes me as bad for the introduction part. Maybe it would be better to just cut it back to something like this, if it makes sense? (I'm not a physicist so please correct me If i cut it down badly)
"Greene is known for his work on mirror symmetry, and topology in string theory."
Details of his work appear in the Research section, I think it's fine to have this level of detail in a section, just not in the introduction to a man who is going to be looked up by average simpletons like me, it gave me quite a shock to be thrown in the deep end like that right away.
Gdfgrsegyjhcc ( talk) 18:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I would say the article is about a physicist, most people interested in it probably are fairly scientifically literate, so I don't think the jargon is a problem
Willbennett2007 (
talk) 19:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I propose changing the current Known For (i.e. String theory, The Elegant Universe, The Fabric of the Cosmos) to Popularization of Physics. Is there anything he is WELL known for in the physics community? Hamsterlopithecus ( talk) 23:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
As a skeptic of string theory, I admit that I share concerns of some here regarding String Theory's claims of higher dimensions, especially considering that there are so many models for these higher dimensions that though elements of string theory are falsifiable, and in fact some have been falsified by the LHC (namely, the models predicting micro-blackholes). So I will admit, I do actually have some concerns that potentially, Mr. Greene may be communicating topics which are purely mathematical at best and unfalsifiable/superfluous at worst.
That being said, while I agree with some of the cricitisms on this talk page, I am also concerned that these arguments are not being properly referenced. So to those who are claiming Mr. Greene is duping the public on scientific issues, I'm wondering if someone could bring some reliable third party sources to bear (peer-reviewed or otherwise) that criticize Mr Greene's work specifically. For example, the journal Nature and other scientific journals often publish book reviews on books published in a related field. If someone could find one a critical review such as that, I would be all for creating a criticism section in the encyclopedia entry just to make this article appear less like Mr. Greene is self-promoting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepractitioner333 ( talk • contribs) 01:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Extreme violations of BLP, and nothing of value or relevance to improving the article. This whole page should be trashed. -- Jibal ( talk) 16:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Apparently veganism isnt a choice because this guy believes everything is preplanned. what an absolute ignorant man 73.160.213.63 ( talk) 23:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)