Talk:Brian Greene

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)

Umm...there is no 'nobel peace prize in non fiction'Willbennett2007 (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) did you perhaps mean Pulitzer?

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

I could not disagree more. How is Dr. Greene self promoting? He seems to simply be promoting science, something many seem to woefully misunderstandWillbennett2007 (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.

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)

I'm sure that you are the world's authority on arithmetical prodigies and multiplication shortcuts.

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

times

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

equals ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.129 (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2011 (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)

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.

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)

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)

You do know Einstein got a lot of his stuff from Poincaré, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.129 (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

writing two books is just what he has done to popularize science (and he has written more than two). Do a google scholar search on him. This will show you what other scientists think of his work (How often it is referenced in academic/scholarly papers). I quite after 75 pages of listings.....I would say that qualifies as not only genius, but being a very prominent scientist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willbennett2007 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 3 August 2010 (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)

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

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)

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)

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)

How Bad?

He was mentioned on XKCD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.39.186 (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In b4 semiprotect? Tar7arus (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Intro

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 problemWillbennett2007 (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Known For

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)

Sourcing Concerns

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)

this page is appalling

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)

vegetarian/vegan/ whatever

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)

Well, according to the behaviour of the atoms in your brain you would say that, I guess...! JezGrove (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)