- Email: [email protected]
Real time
To join the debate, visit newscientist.com/letters
Marital confusion From John Shimmin You explained why the answer to the Jack-Anne-George marriage conundrum in your look at stupidity (30 March, p 30) is “yes” (13 April, p 28). I hope I am not alone in thinking that “cannot be determined” is a more useful, and arguably more accurate, answer. Why? You asked: “Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?” but failed to define your terms. On a standard English reading of the problem, Anne could be widowed and not fit neatly into the married or unmarried categories, leaving the question unanswerable. Oxford, UK
Downside of up From Jules May Rory Feeny wonders why we’re not seriously considering setting up an international body to fire nuclear waste into the sun (20 April, p 33). Here’s one reason: the idea involves taking large gobbets of a substance that is dangerous to keep on Earth, even at depths of several miles, and strapping them
international agency. Also, rockets have a considerable rate of launch or stage failures and, if carrying nuclear waste, any such failure would most likely contaminate a very large area. Westleigh, New South Wales, Australia
Bang on target From Gerry Stern Your look at the search for the next breakthrough in physics was outstanding (2 March, p 37). I had just read Lawrence Krauss’s book on cosmic origins, A Universe From Nothing, and your special issue was a great wrap-up. The diagram of the standard models of particle physics and cosmology on a timescale was the icing on the cake; I’d hang a big copy on my wall. Culver City, California, US
No time, no space From Steve Field Regarding whether the interior of a black hole exists or not (6 April, p 38), if the inside is a singularity with an infinite gravitational field, then time dilation, as predicted by relativity, will presumably mean time stops altogether as viewed from outside the event horizon. If the interior doesn’t exist in time, could it be said to exist in the other three dimensions? Hythe, Kent, UK
Animal transplant on top of thousands of tonnes of high explosive. All in all, up seems far more risky than down. Montrose, Angus, UK From Stanley Schaetzel Has Feeny considered the following: if you want to gum something up, you form an
From S. J. Courtney Your editorial asks whether patients or society would accept “humanised” animal organs for transplant (20 April, p 3). For my part, if extensive anti-rejection treatment was needed and the transplant was likely to give only a little extra quality of life, I might opt for a shorter life with a dignified death. If the technical
issues could be resolved, then I would consider hosting a humanised heart, kidney or whatever. Ford, Shropshire, UK
Physical benefits From Anthony Burton Letters from Max Lang and Roy Knowles question the value of particle physics and cosmology.
Real time From Paul Reeve Thankfully, physicist Lee Smolin has concluded that time is not an illusion (20 April, p 30). Having read in previous New Scientists that reality could be an illusion (29 September 2012, p 45), and that some cosmologists think we are simply holographic projections (23 July 2011, p 31) on a twodimensional brane dominated by unseen dark energy and matter within an infinite multiverse – itself just part of a computer simulation by an advanced civilisation (29 September 2012, p 41), I – if indeed I exist – was a bit worried for a moment. Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK
Mind the puddles Knowles wonders if they are “just hobbies” (20 April, p 32). It is very often the case that any practical advantages of research are not immediately obvious. That does not mean to say they won’t be later. As physicist Michael Faraday is reputed to have said to the then British Chancellor of the Exchequer William Gladstone, when questioned about the usefulness of electricity: “Why, sir, there is every probability that you will soon be able to tax it.” Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK From Stephen Wilson Why study cosmology and particle physics? The global positioning system (GPS) depends on general relativity, because the atomic clocks it relies on drift if they are not calibrated for reduced gravity in orbit. Those clocks – not to mention all of nuclear medicine – are the fruit of particle physics. The history of science suggests that we dare not stop experimenting now. Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
From Robert Gilmour Feedback’s jocular mention of a 10,000-millimetre waterproof rating for hiking gaiters (13 April) is actually a hydrostatic head rating. This means that if you were to have a column of water 10 metres tall pressed down on the fabric, the water could not force its way through. So there’s no need for you to hike through a lake to check they work! Edinburgh, UK
For the record n In our look at the use of robotics in building construction (20 April, p 22), we should have called engineering firm Laing O’Rourke’s venture Project Freefab, not Freeform. Letters should be sent to: Letters to the Editor, New Scientist, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Fax: +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Email: [email protected] Include your full postal address and telephone number, and a reference (issue, page number, title) to articles. We reserve the right to edit letters. Reed Business Information reserves the right to use any submissions sent to the letters column of New Scientist magazine, in any other format.
4 May 2013 | NewScientist | 35
Marital confusion From John Shimmin You explained why the answer to the Jack-Anne-George marriage conundrum in your look at stupidity (30 March, p 30) is “yes” (13 April, p 28). I hope I am not alone in thinking that “cannot be determined” is a more useful, and arguably more accurate, answer. Why? You asked: “Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?” but failed to define your terms. On a standard English reading of the problem, Anne could be widowed and not fit neatly into the married or unmarried categories, leaving the question unanswerable. Oxford, UK
Downside of up From Jules May Rory Feeny wonders why we’re not seriously considering setting up an international body to fire nuclear waste into the sun (20 April, p 33). Here’s one reason: the idea involves taking large gobbets of a substance that is dangerous to keep on Earth, even at depths of several miles, and strapping them
international agency. Also, rockets have a considerable rate of launch or stage failures and, if carrying nuclear waste, any such failure would most likely contaminate a very large area. Westleigh, New South Wales, Australia
Bang on target From Gerry Stern Your look at the search for the next breakthrough in physics was outstanding (2 March, p 37). I had just read Lawrence Krauss’s book on cosmic origins, A Universe From Nothing, and your special issue was a great wrap-up. The diagram of the standard models of particle physics and cosmology on a timescale was the icing on the cake; I’d hang a big copy on my wall. Culver City, California, US
No time, no space From Steve Field Regarding whether the interior of a black hole exists or not (6 April, p 38), if the inside is a singularity with an infinite gravitational field, then time dilation, as predicted by relativity, will presumably mean time stops altogether as viewed from outside the event horizon. If the interior doesn’t exist in time, could it be said to exist in the other three dimensions? Hythe, Kent, UK
Animal transplant on top of thousands of tonnes of high explosive. All in all, up seems far more risky than down. Montrose, Angus, UK From Stanley Schaetzel Has Feeny considered the following: if you want to gum something up, you form an
From S. J. Courtney Your editorial asks whether patients or society would accept “humanised” animal organs for transplant (20 April, p 3). For my part, if extensive anti-rejection treatment was needed and the transplant was likely to give only a little extra quality of life, I might opt for a shorter life with a dignified death. If the technical
issues could be resolved, then I would consider hosting a humanised heart, kidney or whatever. Ford, Shropshire, UK
Physical benefits From Anthony Burton Letters from Max Lang and Roy Knowles question the value of particle physics and cosmology.
Real time From Paul Reeve Thankfully, physicist Lee Smolin has concluded that time is not an illusion (20 April, p 30). Having read in previous New Scientists that reality could be an illusion (29 September 2012, p 45), and that some cosmologists think we are simply holographic projections (23 July 2011, p 31) on a twodimensional brane dominated by unseen dark energy and matter within an infinite multiverse – itself just part of a computer simulation by an advanced civilisation (29 September 2012, p 41), I – if indeed I exist – was a bit worried for a moment. Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK
Mind the puddles Knowles wonders if they are “just hobbies” (20 April, p 32). It is very often the case that any practical advantages of research are not immediately obvious. That does not mean to say they won’t be later. As physicist Michael Faraday is reputed to have said to the then British Chancellor of the Exchequer William Gladstone, when questioned about the usefulness of electricity: “Why, sir, there is every probability that you will soon be able to tax it.” Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK From Stephen Wilson Why study cosmology and particle physics? The global positioning system (GPS) depends on general relativity, because the atomic clocks it relies on drift if they are not calibrated for reduced gravity in orbit. Those clocks – not to mention all of nuclear medicine – are the fruit of particle physics. The history of science suggests that we dare not stop experimenting now. Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
From Robert Gilmour Feedback’s jocular mention of a 10,000-millimetre waterproof rating for hiking gaiters (13 April) is actually a hydrostatic head rating. This means that if you were to have a column of water 10 metres tall pressed down on the fabric, the water could not force its way through. So there’s no need for you to hike through a lake to check they work! Edinburgh, UK
For the record n In our look at the use of robotics in building construction (20 April, p 22), we should have called engineering firm Laing O’Rourke’s venture Project Freefab, not Freeform. Letters should be sent to: Letters to the Editor, New Scientist, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Fax: +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Email: [email protected] Include your full postal address and telephone number, and a reference (issue, page number, title) to articles. We reserve the right to edit letters. Reed Business Information reserves the right to use any submissions sent to the letters column of New Scientist magazine, in any other format.
4 May 2013 | NewScientist | 35