That out of the way, I'm a third year graduate student at Princeton University in the physics department. I received a BS in Physics and one in Mathematics from Yale University in 1998. Needless to say, in the grand tradition of rather silly and quite meaningless Ivy Leagure rivalries, I consider myself at Princeton, but not of Princeton. Which is not to say Princeton is a completely bad place, of course, -- I'm rather fond of the physics department -- but as the old saying goes, "Harvard sucks. Princeton doesn't matter.".
In terms of actual work, you can see the other page I have with papers and other gory details. In broad terms, I'm interested in string theory, one of the better hopes out there for a theory that could unite all of the forces in the universe. It's a rather esoteric field, and, even after over twenty years of work on it, I think it's safe to say that we at best understand the miniscule edges of it. So, at the very least, there's lots to do, especially given the lack of data in the field. The standard model, the theory we have now which explains three out of the four forces, has been amazingly accurate (recent results notwithstanding). Annoyingly accuracte, in fact. It's tough to theorize without the ability to check if you're on the right track. One is unfortunately often reduced to guesses upon other guesses. This can be somewhat discomfiting, but it's not as bad as it might sound. Just as an example, Einstein's theory of special relativity was derived from an attempt to understand theoretical issues about how electricity and magnetism behave when things are moving. General relativity was derived from an attempt to understand how to include gravity in this framework. String theory came from an attempt to understand the strong force (before the advent of the current theory, quantum chromodynamics) and it was later discovered that it might also have gravity in it. Since there are very few other games in town, it seems like this is probably worth studying. Much has been made about the popularity of string theory in comparison to the other ideas out there, but just because something is popular, it doesn't mean it's wrong.
Having gotten the defense of my chosen field out of the way -- it can be quite fun. Really. -- I'm interested in other stuff, too. The current election (sigh) has rekindled the political junkie in me as evidenced by the rather long list of links on the other page. I consider myself a moderate democrat although that's a rather coarse label. I'm a strong proponent of the first amendment protections for free speach and the separation of church and state. Beyond that, I'm probably a bit right of center fiscally, general preferring paying off the debt rather than new appropriations or tax cuts. On most social issues, I'm strongly to the left. I tend to argue with republicans more often than democrats, however, because the social issues matter to me more than the fiscal issues. I'd much rather have someone take from my wallet than take from my freedom. Also, the republican party has the unfortunate feature of containing the christian right which, given my religious views, makes an easy target.
Speaking of those views, I'm what has been termed a weak atheist. This means that I believe in god much in the same way other people believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. That is to say, not at all. In the interest of heading off countless arguments about the nature of faith in belief in disbelief, the distinction is drawn between "lacking a belief in" and "believing the nonexistence of". A weak atheist has the former rather than the latter. This position is sometimes identified with agnosticism, but many consider that the belief in the inability to know the existence of god. Anyways, arguing semantics is tiresome. The point is that if you were to point out any conception of god more substantive than the trite but common "god is love" or "god is the universe", I would probably disbelieve in that, provided there aren't too many hedges. Current surveys put the levels of nonbelief in America at around 5 or so percent, so the constant protestations of persecution by many large christian organizations are quite tiresome.
I could put a bunch of other stuff here. Deconstructionism, creationism and pseudoscience are easy targets, but there's not terribly much new I could say about them here. I read a lot of fantasy and science fiction books. Much to the disbelief of some, there's a lot of good stuff out there in the genre. Trash is fun, too, although after I developed taste in my early teens, the trash can't be quite as bad as it once was. Having grown up in the San Francisco Bay Area in the eighties, I am a big Forty-Niners fan, their current rebuilding notwithstanding. It's not always as easy to watch them these days, but if you go in with low expectations, you can't help but be pleasently surprised. Well, usually. Basketball is reasonably entertaining, but the Golden State Warriors are a lost cause. I still haven't recovered from the 1993 baseball season, so I try to avoid it if at all possible.
Last Modified: 2/21/01