Notes:

• Symmetry from the Physics perspective: Enthropy (ordered --> disordered)
• Example of system which changes disorder to order: LIFE (Metabolism, respiration, photosynthesis)
• DEATH on the other hand disintegrates. Organisms become new building blocks of another life.
• Life is a system (Self-contained) that reorganizes itself.
• Humans invent to resist change
• Living organisms have some kind of order, described as "symmetry".

• How close must the 2 images be for it to be called "symmetrical"?
• 2 definitions of "symmetry": Precise and imprecise.
• Is it inherent in our nature to recognize patterns? Do we seek patterns instinctively?

• The Physics Perspective: Looking for invariant + unchanging laws that truly and absolutely describes all phenomena in the universe (constants like pii, mol, e)
• Newton's laws do not display complete physical symmetry
• Universe: 1. Relativity 2. Newtonian physics 3. Quantum mechanics
• Scientists try to pursue the "Grand Unified Theory", a way of reconciling the various theories which are not compatible.
• Superstrings

jon-han.com/work/dimensionsm.jpg

Superstring Theory, one of the recent proposals of modern physics, in short suggests that in a world with three ordinary dimensions and some additional very "small" dimensions, particles are strings and membranes. (wikipedia, http://www.particleadventure.org)
------------------------------------------------------

Michio Kaku the Physicist and Popularizer of Science

(image from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku)

Michio Kaku (the guy in the video who introduced to us the Superstring theory by relating it to his favourite hobby, ice-skating) is a theoretical physicist specializing in the String Theory. In addition, he is a popularizer of Science.

Popular Science is an interpretation science intended for the general public as the audience. As compared to Science Journalism, popular science is probably more broad-ranging and finds itself being presented in many different formats (e.g. documentaries) other than in academic journals. The goal of popular science is to capture the content and methods as accurately as possible while making the language more accessible and understandable for the layman.

More from wikipedia: "Popular science emphasizes uniqueness and generality, taking a tone of factual authority absent from the scientific literature. Comparisons between original scientific reports and derivative science journalism and popular science typically reveal at least some level of distortion and oversimplification which can often be quite dramatic.

Some features of popular science productions include entertainment value or personal relevance to the audience, generalized and simplified science concepts, use of metaphors and analogies to explain difficult and/or abstract scientific concepts and very limited mathematical formulas or complicating details. As it is presented for an audience with little or no science background, it explains general concepts more thoroughly."

In my opinion, it is probably kind of difficult for specialists or scientists to be popularizers of science at the same time, as the gap between expert knowledge and expressing it in layman language might be a little too wide to bridge. However, scientists-cum-popularizers of science such as Michio Kaku have successfully done it and they're really worth our admiration. (By the way Michael Faraday our favourite Sec 4 electromagnetism physicist is a popularizer of science too.)

I believe that knowledge has more value when it is shared with people. Not just like-minded people or people of this same academic/intellectual status as you, but ordinary people who are generally unable to access them.

As an extension of the previous thought, many elite groups/organizations risk lapsing into the danger of being too isolated from the 'outside world' or 'general population'. Being passionate about and engrossed in one's discipline is a commendable thing, but when it comes to a stage where you lose the connection or communication with those not within the group...I think it becomes a pity.

Perhaps some would remember people like Michio Kaku for his great contributions to the development of the string theory, but for ordinary people like me, I probably won't remember the details of the theory -- what I'll remember is the simple and clear-cut manner by which he explained it to us, the metaphors he used and most imporantly the satisfying moment of realization and understanding that he has given us ordinary people, something we would not have been able to experience otherwise from the words of another scientist.

Most people can learn, but few people can teach. Everyone can do differentiation, but not everyone can come up with an effective metaphor.

Quoting Albert Einstein, "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction.”