An op-ed in the Sunday New York Times -- amusing regardless of your opinion of the candidate -- offers "A Quantum Theory of Mitt Romney." Much the same way that light is both a particle and a wave, Mitt Romney is both a moderate and a conservative. The Times even has a Feynman diagram of a Romney encountering an anti-Romney, in which the result is annihilation of the Romneys, leaving behind an electron and a $20 bill. For a funny take on politics as hard science, read it here.
Oh wait that is funny, where have all the articles making fun of Obama been? Hmm, seems that they are no where to be found.
Shutup about politics PopSci, you are bad at it. Not to mention incredibly biased for no reason.
I am a Democrat and personally feel there is plenty of reason to be biased... that said I completely agree with Titans. Politics has no place on this site unless there is some real scientific research behind it (statistical models of political opinions within a population, sociological studies of how opinions are formed etc.). This article is not science and is only a distraction from the reason I visit this site, which is to learn about new science and technology.
After the overwhelmingly negative response to Ms. Boyle's previous foray into politics with the 'Uncanny Valley' article, POPSCI apparently thinks it wise to approve another debasement of the magazine's scientific roots.
It's unfortunate to see Feynman's name is the same article as such transparent politicized drivel from a 'Superb Op-Ed.' I really fail to see why POPSCI continues to publish this kind of content, regardless of what affiliation it may support.
A mighty shame that POLSCI dot com domain is already taken. Much more appropriate for this piece...
I thought the Newt Gingrich -> Moon Colony was a lame attempt to squeeze politics into a science magazine. But this takes the cake.
I'm not even a republican, but gee this "article" ticks me off. Let's stick with popular science and not popular politics, shall we? I like to have a place or two that I can go without seeing mention of politics. This is one of them... or at least was. My opinion of popsci just dropped another notch. Not many notches left on the old belt.
Yes, Popsci should stay out of politics, blah blah blah. However, I can see the appeal of this editorial, as it is really a science parody used to make fun of a political candidate. And it is really really funny, except for the end.
Presidents to me are puppet heads to great corporations. Still they also tend to do what the popular public wants and are in office short 2 terms. I can live with that.
I gladly pay twice my taxes next year to help get rid of the national debt and even get a loan to do it, if all the politicians in the Senate, Congress and House would be gone in 5 years. We need new blood! I love the USA and its constitution. I do not wish to cause chaos and so the current written laws will have to stand. But we need a new group of non-career Politian’s in the government. The original Greek Republic everyone took office a short term and left quickly that office and was also rotated to other offices. The Greeks were very aware how power corrupts.
Our current system, they arrive with their own political view and will completely sacrifice one segment, for their own self interest. They no longer love the country as a whole, a family. It’s all about control, self interest, money. Their lobbies, their power, their long terms have corrupted them.
We need politicians that love the whole of USA and see us all as family!
I do agree with you completely, POPSCI should not be political and should stay out of politics too!
Hey, I made that joke about a month ago! Good for me I guess.
"Romney is the quantum candidate. He exists in superposition. When you measure him, that determines certain properties by the very act of measurement. But there is no definite reality underlying that. He only really exists when you are looking at him."
("With Detroit Debacle, Mitt Romney Steps on His Momentum—Again" on the Atlantic Magazine site. Can't post a direct URL.)
As we all know, science has a well-known liberal bias.
Um. PhysOrg here I come.
It's bad enough when a religious piece hits but really now? While I tend to agree w/ the article (if you can call it that) the exact same thing can be said of Mr Hope and Change and we have ACTUAL observation of behavior in office versus speculation of what "might" be... :)
Sure, it's funny, and relevant to PopSci because it mentions "quantum theory" and Feynman. Not science of course, nor political analysis, but disparaging humor meant to create a caricature of a Presidential candidate with reference to scientific terms and scientists. We all have a sense of humor, right?
We'll be waiting bemusedly for the next installment of humor or criticism, however tangential to "science" as long as it uses some of the code words like "chaos theory" or "quantum relativity."
Meanwhile, amuse yourselves with the thought that Obama, as always, is better at most things than your average politician. If you thought Romney was paradoxical, Obama takes it to a whole new level. For example:
Obama is both for the Keystone XL pipeline and against it at the same time. For increasing fossil fuel production while also against it. For stimulating job growth (in the "green" industry) while simultaneously against it (in the much larger conventional energy industry). For energy policy based in "science" (liberals' version of science) and against it (real science) at the same time. Against those "just say no" Republicans and their obstructionist ways, while just saying no and obstructing Republicans when they craft detailed, reasonable budgets that reduce deficits and address entitlements. Against reducing the debt (with budget cuts) while also FOR reducing the debt (with tax increases).
Fun stuff. I could go on and on but that's enough for now.
Haha I like how the article has been hidden after so many negative comments. Take the hint PopSci.
I meant the whole article isn't posted like it was this morning.:D
They've changed the article since this morning. When I commented at noon it read more along the lines "Superb Op-ed", and also directed readers back to the 'uncanny valley' article where they published a similarly distasteful political article, again criticizing Romney.
Rather than making things better, changing your article without noting the editing or update is poor journalism. Shameful backtracking.
A bit of recovery of what was published this morning.... feel free to compare.
"Much the same way that light is both a particle and a wave, Mitt Romney is both a moderate and a conservative, all at the same time. And just as the act of observing a particle's state cannot be untangled from the outcome of the observation, Mitt Romney holds all political positions at once, until such time as he is asked to state an opinion. This is from a superb op-ed in the Sunday New York Times: "A Quantum Theory of Mitt Romney." We have already pondered the ways in which Romney, the GOP front-runner in terms of money and delegates, is like a robot in Uncanny Valley. But this is even more appropriate: Romney is an example of quantum physics. The Times even has a Feynman diagram of a Romney encountering an anti-Romney, in which the result is annihilation of the Romneys, leaving behind an electron and a $20 bill..."
and second half.
"The piece explains the concept of quantum campaigning, which is different from what you might call classical or Newtonian campaigning, in which gaffes and Tea Party outside forces are required to change party inertia. The realm of quantum campaigning is much more bizarre, rife with duality and antiparticles and entanglement and multiRomneys."
Sorry for the doubly post. Took some digging to find the whole thing.
You are the moron for using the wrong form of your. Sooo I feel YOU'RE the moron.
It appears that most of the 6 percent of scientists who are Republican are pissed off about this.
Oh jeez. I agree that changing a post after it's been published is poor form, but I think people are being a bit unreasonable here. To say that an op-ed is "funny" or even "superb" isn't necessarily to endorse its point of view. Personally I feel capable of recognizing funniness or good writing even when I disagree with the author's politics. I'd like to think most other readers can too.
@MarkAnderson: Republican scientists? Hummm I've heard stories about those beings. Have you met one?
Now kids! LOL
Science sees no further than what it can sense, i.e. facts.
Religion sees beyond the senses, i.e. faith.
Open your mind and see!