Nima Arkani-Hamed Speaks with Ian McEwan

You Might like to move ahead to 12:45 on sliding scale....somewhat of an improvement from 15:45 of about 3:00 seconds. Nima acknowledges in speaking,  about the introduction of this video,  of a metaphor considering the Higg's Boson,  and of course speaks to the metaphors limitations.  So along with 3 seconds savings,  you also get to enjoy that introduction.

I could not help but think of Leonard Susskind,  Raphael Bousso, Juan Maldacena  and  Joseph Polchinski when talking about Falling into a Blackhole, when Nima was speaking. What Nima is saying is important to me. I understand what he is saying about what drives people to that wonder, and how to science people,  this is a fundamental feeling which is expressed across many of those who have had this mystery about the world at heart. Creatively expressed,  as to get to the source of things whether by the science, or,  with regard to the creation of artistic endeavor whether it be music or writing.

Nima speaks about Truth and that's with a capital "T,"  so I am not lost on the importance of this meaning, but like things of wonder and creativity,  the message of Truth is fundamental as well to people.

When Nima spoke about Stephen Weinberg's first three minutes this sent me back to the ideas regarding how our views have changed,  to ask, what the microseconds might have in store for us.  This becomes fundamental when we learn to see what models can apply them self too,  what we may be looking at the universe. This disturb me somewhat as some spoke ill of conceptual fundamentals of model theories when they did not understand this simple fact and were chorusing. Beauty and deep take on their true meaning.

Ian McEwan at 29:55 approximately spoke about the types of maths, and with his list I believe he failed to see the significance of what was sitting before him as Nima the mathematician. One has to see that the Theoretical was an accomplishment above all the maths to which included,  all these rigid structures Nima was talking about. It is not as if you can take a step and make an pronouncement without leveling the structure in some way without regarding the maths involved. This is what I have learn as a researcher within the subject of the sciences being spoken too, as I have come to know it. A White rectangle was simple in its description but we know what he meant right(LHC)?

Ian started to lose me when the significance of the conversation about commonality now became the race to become a known scientist.  Of course thoughts about publishing in the Arxiv as to the substance and work to establish credibility crossed my mind. But that timing was ill supported to the movement of this conversation to me. While Nima did professed to not understanding the creativity aspect of the work involved he was very aware of the structure ability to get to results being explained in science as his job done well. There could not have been a better discription of the creative process to me then how Nima logically explained it.

See Also:

Nima Arkani-Hamed debates a novelist