Racket drop on the serve

[mntlblok]

Then I guess you guys aren't real happy with Peter Woit and Lee Smolin.

Kevin
Savannah

Regarding your other hobby, this is an "It is a small world" moment for me. Physics is my hobby as well, although I haven't reached a stage where I can understand modern physics. I still get confused by mechanics, embarassing given the amount of formal education I have had in that subject.
This past summer, I had the fortune of playing on the same USTA team as a string theorist regarded the world's greatest physicist(he is mentioned a lot in "The Elegant Universe") as well as one of the top mathematicians(he has a Fields medal).

[maverick1]

Then I guess you guys aren't real happy with Peter Woit and Lee Smolin.

Kevin
Savannah

Ask Phil. I know nothing about string theory. I hadn't heard of these two guys. Just looked them up, and they seem to be String theory skeptics.

I struggle with simple 18th century physics. I was just bragging about a guy I played with. He is regarded very highly by others though I have no clue about these things. There is something called the H-index to rank physicists, and he leads the second highest by a bigger margin than Federer leads Nadal. And to top it all, he has the equivalent of the Nobel prize in Mathematics!! That just blows my mind. When Federer wins the premier championship in another sport, he can begin to compare himself to this guy. He would still never bridge the huge gulf between the importance to humanity of sport & science.

[gzhpcu]

Then I guess you guys aren't real happy with Peter Woit and Lee Smolin.

Kevin
Savannah

Well, the points they bring up are valid. No experimental verification possible yet, everybody working practically solely on string theory, no Einstein equivalent, etc., etc. Still, looking into M-theory is intellectually interesting, and there really is no major grand unification competitor at the moment.

At least we can get a grasp of tennis thanks to slow motion video....

[maverick1]

Still, looking into M-theory is intellectually interesting,

Guess whose brainchild M-theory was
I think you know the name by know. I just don't want to type the name & cause my silly posts to show in google searches for his name.

[gzhpcu]

Guess whose brainchild M-theory was
I think you know the name by know. I just don't want to type the name & cause my silly posts to show in google searches for his name.

Wow! W himself!

[mntlblok]

Still, looking into M-theory is intellectually interesting, and there really is no major grand unification competitor at the moment.

At least we can get a grasp of tennis thanks to slow motion video....

My brain will never be able to handle branes, and my hat is off to anyone whose brain can. I *do* think, thanks to John's high speed video and analysis of same, that I'm starting to get a pretty good three-dimensional handle on what's happening in tennis strokes - especially as it relates to what I've been screwing up for years. My recent tournament results seem to agree.

If you make it back through one of those worm holes some day, be sure and let us know what it's like in all those other universes.

Kevin
Savannah

[gzhpcu]

Multidimensional branes, or p-branes as they are termed ( ), are just mathematical models.

Yet, it seems that even our biomechanical tennis models are still incomplete...