Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> scott wrote:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter_halo

> "either the halo is composed of weakly-interacting elementary particles 
> known as WIMPs, or it is home to large numbers of small, dark bodies known 
> as MACHOs."

> I really think the scientists need to knock this sort of stuff off. 500 
> years from now, people will still be using these names.

  As far as I understand from his presentations, Neil deGrasse Tyson fully
embraces and promotes the use of descriptive, mundane and even funny names
in physics, especially compared to the cryptic and technical names used eg.
in chemistry and biology. Such names include things like "big bang", "black
hole" and "spaghettification" (all quite complex subjects of astrophysics).
I assume "WIMP" and "MACHO" are also right on the spot. :)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:16:22 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> scott wrote:
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter_halo
> 
>> "either the halo is composed of weakly-interacting elementary particles
>> known as WIMPs, or it is home to large numbers of small, dark bodies
>> known as MACHOs."
> 
>> I really think the scientists need to knock this sort of stuff off. 500
>> years from now, people will still be using these names.
> 
>   As far as I understand from his presentations, Neil deGrasse Tyson
>   fully
> embraces and promotes the use of descriptive, mundane and even funny
> names in physics, especially compared to the cryptic and technical names
> used eg. in chemistry and biology. Such names include things like "big
> bang", "black hole" and "spaghettification" (all quite complex subjects
> of astrophysics). I assume "WIMP" and "MACHO" are also right on the
> spot. :)

That sure sounds like him - and I think he does it to make science more 
fun for kids in order to get them interested in it.

We need kids to be interested in science, or we're screwed.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> embraces and promotes the use of descriptive, mundane and even funny names
> in physics, especially compared to the cryptic and technical names used 

Sure. But "big bang" is descriptive. "WIMP" is almost descriptive. "MACHO" 
is obviously a tortured acronym to go along with WIMP.

Calling quarks "charmed" and "strange" and "beauty" is another example. 
Sure, there's probably no good name for those anyway (as in, they don't 
correspond to anything that might suggest a name), so picking a meaningless 
word that isn't easy to confuse with anything else is really quite reasonable.

But when your competing theory has a particle called WIMP, and you make your 
particle's acronym MACHO, you're just being silly. :-)  It's as bad as XNA 
one-upping GNU.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message