THE time has come for Feedback to humbly offer Stephen Hawking some advice. In July, the physicist told New 杏吧原创 that he didn鈥檛 know what to work on now that he has sorted out the black hole information paradox. So we turned to the collective brain of our readers and asked for problems profound enough to merit the great man鈥檚 attention, expressed as a question in a single sentence of plain English.
Well, what a troubled bunch you are. Why do we exist? What is time? Where is God? Many of you wanted Hawking to provide answers to these weighty questions. But we think he needs something more entertaining to ponder after spending so many years peering into the properties of black holes. So, to ease the transition, we suggest he starts with the first of the five winning entries to our mid-year competition.
Peter Hicks from Harrogate, UK, was not the only one to ask about lost socks, but he makes the problem sound reassuringly similar to the one that Hawking has just solved:
Advertisement
鈥淲hy, when two socks pass the washday event horizon, do they so often become singularities?鈥�
And if Hawking wants to continue with his studies of black holes, Beatles fan T. L. Turner suggests this problem:
鈥淗ow many black holes does it take to fill the Albert Hall?鈥�
Next, a galactic mystery. Astronomers claim that 96 per cent of the universe is made of dark matter and dark energy, but they have no idea what either is. Thanks to Malcolm Bacchus in London for asking Hawking to do better:
鈥淓xplain the universe we see around us without the need to use dark matter, dark energy, dark forces or dark chocolate.鈥�
Some physicists believe that string theory will explain everything. So the learned professor may want to tackle this question, from Peter Szatmary in Cambridge, UK:
鈥淗ow much string does one need to tie together quantum mechanics and general relativity?鈥�
Finally Feedback poses a question that Hawking, who proved that information can escape black holes, is in a unique position to answer:
鈥淚n contrast to black holes, why has information failed to escape from many copies of A Brief History of Time?鈥�
We invite Guy Matthews from Oxford, UK, whose entry this is, to let us know whether he manages to extract any information from Hawking鈥檚 second book, The Universe in a Nutshell. Each of our five winners will, thanks to the generosity of Random House, receive a copy.
To the hundreds of others who sent in questions, our sincere thanks. We hope you find your answers. And to those few who wondered 鈥渨hat is it that women want?鈥� our female judges recommend, quite simply, that you ask.
OUCH! It鈥檚 not often that Feedback is made to blush, but we certainly reddened when the 28 August issue of New 杏吧原创 came out.
In one item that week we complained about people who badger us with email enquiries that they could easily answer for themselves by using an internet search engine. We even mentioned a website, , that will nag them, then do the search for them.
In another item in the same issue we reported on the PIN number syndrome, aka redundant acronym, or RAS, syndrome and wondered which reader would be the first to spot the fully redundant 鈥減ersonal identification PIN number鈥�.
And, of course, as soon as this issue hit the streets we were deluged with emails suggesting, with the utmost tact and delicacy, that we take our own advice and Google it.
So, blushing scarlet, we did just that. And got 155 hits, including instances of our first full-blown example of RAS syndrome, which unravels as 鈥減ersonal identification personal identification number number鈥�.
OUR reports on engineers鈥� euphemisms (10 July) seem to have stirred an unplanned rapid disassembly event of interest and lit uncontrolled thermal events of passion. (For readers whose first language is English, that鈥檒l be an explosion and fires.)
Reader Chris Mars counters with a list purporting to translate research paper euphemisms. It begins with the introduction: 鈥淚t has long been known鈥�, meaning 鈥淚 didn鈥檛 bother to look up the reference鈥�. Then there鈥檚 the methodology section: 鈥渢hree of the sample were chosen for detailed study鈥� meaning 鈥渢he other results didn鈥檛 make sense鈥�. 鈥淚t is believed that鈥� means 鈥淚 think鈥�, while 鈥渁 careful analysis of obtainable data鈥� definitely suggests 鈥渢hree pages of notes were obliterated when I knocked over a beer glass鈥�.
FINALLY, the BBC has created yet another unusual unit of measurement as part of its Olympic coverage.
In an article about weightlifting spotted by Andy Neill in its online sports news, the world record is described thus: 鈥�263 kilograms is equivalent to 4.9 Paula Radcliffes鈥�.
From the department of the blindingly obvious. The large mug received by Christine Eberhart as a birthday gift bore a label warning: 鈥淢ay get hot in microwave鈥�