I have a love/hate relationship with fysiks (aka physics), that other 'f' word.
I'm a 'conceptual physics lover', 'calculated fysiks hater'. I read 'Physics for Biologists' and the 'Tao of Physics'. But I hated my physics text book.
Physicists are obsessed for finding the 'Theory of Everything'. As if there was 'one' theory for anything. To me, physics is modeling for probabilities. Not to be confused with 'anything is possible.' But probabilities are what reality is made of, each having a different weight. Many theories in physics can be modeled by mathematics but not tested in the 'real world'. Nevertheless, sometimes that's all we have.
I have followed with the interest, curiosity and amusement of a physics novice the rapidly changinng theories of late: string, relativity, origins of the universe (and it's many components), and Farscape. Okay, the latter is more for entertainment.
So now we have physicists challenging Einstien's special theory of relativity with.........
very special theory of relativity [1].
Is it clear in color? Does it require a helmet? I bet it rides a magic bus.
Time for all us Observers to get on our Neutrinos and ride!
[1] Article in New Scientist (Jan. 20, 2007; vol. 193, No. 2587).
Letter by Andrew Cohen in Physical Review Letters (97, 021601; 2006).
