Are you unhappy with the way you look? Feel like you're carrying around some large extra dimensions? Want to compactify your manifold before the summer conference season gets here?
If you answered "Yes!" to any of those questions, then you're ready for the String Theory Diet!
Each rich, satisfying meals of eleven-dimensional noodles, and watch the pounds melt away! You'll lose weight so fast, your friends will think that gravity is leaking off your brane and affecting them more than you! You'll be your own walking hierarchy problem!
You can lose as much as one Planck mass per Planck time (individual loss rates may vary; past results do not guarantee future performance) using our simple three-step plan. The tenured research job and New York Times best-selling pop science book of your dreams are within your reach!
(Click "Read On" for the diet that wil change your life!)
Actually, I've got nothing for you. I just noticed two recurring patterns in blog traffic:
- Posts dealing with string theory, even in passing, get a minimum of ten comments.
- Posts dealing with weight loss issues, even in passing, get a minimum of ten comments.
I figured a post titled "The String Theory Diet" ought to get into the triple digits... I just wish I had a halfway serious diet plan to go with it-- it'd be like a licence to print money.
Comments
# 1 | Rob Knop | April 17, 2006 12:03 PM
First Post!
I was hoping you were going to say that you had found a diet that made no observational predictions that were going to be tested any time soon, and as such you could claim as much weight loss as you wanted....
(OK, nine to go.) (Or is it nineteen? Are weight loss comments orthogonal to string theory comments?)
-Rob
# 2 | Jim H | April 17, 2006 12:22 PM
I think it's 99 to go; he said triple digit.
# 3 | Alejandro | April 17, 2006 12:42 PM
Yes, he did... but what's the reasoning behind multiplying the two quantities instead of adding them? I think the correct theoretical prediction is 20+ comments.
# 4 | Chad Orzel | April 17, 2006 12:46 PM
I was hoping you were going to say that you had found a diet that made no observational predictions that were going to be tested any time soon, and as such you could claim as much weight loss as you wanted....
That's a good one-- I wish I'd thought of that angle.
Yes, he did... but what's the reasoning behind multiplying the two quantities instead of adding them? I think the correct theoretical prediction is 20+ comments.
Well, that's model-dependent...
I multiplied thm on the theory that the weight-loss commenters and the string-theory commenters might start sniping at one another, generating a much larger number of comments.
Other models would call for either twenty+ comments, or fewer then ten, as both groups get offended by the frivolity.
# 5 | TrekJunkie![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/principles/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 17, 2006 12:47 PM
Did you ever tried the cold fusion diet? It seems that only a couple of guys at A&M observed any results.
# 6 | megan | April 17, 2006 1:38 PM
Is the String Theory Diet endorsed by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
# 7 | wheatdogg | April 17, 2006 1:38 PM
If you can work in AIDS infection models, evolution or atheism, too, you'd have a winner.
# 8 | Harlan | April 17, 2006 1:44 PM
>one Planck mass per Planck time
Yowza. That's a loss of about 3 x 10^35 kg/second, if I did the division right in my head! I don't advise this diet for an extended time. Say, as long as a femtosecond. Even more unhealthy than low-carb dieting...
# 9 | Kapitano | April 17, 2006 1:57 PM
Where there's science there's religious nutcases:
http://kapitano.blogspot.com/2006/01/god-diet.html
(and excuses to point people to one's own blog)
# 10 | ThePolynomial | April 17, 2006 2:10 PM
I like the quantum diet where you've both lost and not lost weight until you step on the scale. But if you keep weighing yourself, there's a very good chance you'll never lose any weight.
# 11 | Kristin | April 17, 2006 2:16 PM
If this is a ploy to get the lurkers to comment, I just wanted to say here that I'm not falling for it. I wouldn't post just to help you reach your projected total.
But seriously...it's kind of interesting how talking about what posts tend to generate more comments, generates more comments. Another case of the measurement changing what is observed?
# 12 | mk | April 17, 2006 2:40 PM
Ooooff! Snorked coffee all over my keyboard with, "Are weight loss comments orthogonal to string theory comments?" Does that mean we could get to a unique solution?
# 13 | Brandon | April 17, 2006 3:12 PM
Is that extra mass radiated away via the hawking method?
# 14 | agm | April 17, 2006 3:31 PM
Heh.
# 15 | Steinn Sigurdsson | April 17, 2006 4:21 PM
This is a totally gratuitous comment, just to boost the count
# 16 | Cryptic Ned | April 17, 2006 4:29 PM
I don't have much training in physics, but I think if you eat enough noodles that are shorter than the Planck length you will get nutrition from them without gaining any detectable weight.
# 17 | A | April 17, 2006 7:00 PM
Shame on you for making me laugh at work. My neighbors are starting to question my sanity...
# 18 | Chad Orzel | April 17, 2006 8:07 PM
Yowza. That's a loss of about 3 x 10^35 kg/second, if I did the division right in my head! I don't advise this diet for an extended time.
Well, individual results may vary...
Is that extra mass radiated away via the hawking method?
Yes, but the information content remains, so it's possible to reconstruct how much you used to weigh, and what you ate to get that way.
# 19 | Chad Orzel | April 17, 2006 8:20 PM
Also, credit where due: Kate is the one who came up with "String Theory Diet" as a post idea. She's way smarter than I am.
# 20 | Moshe | April 17, 2006 11:58 PM
Good god, I think you are on to something big here, let me know if you have an opening for a consultant (also, to get to triple digits you'd need to mention the A-word or at the very least the L-word, but then you'll get triple digit comments on *all* your posts...the same comments in fact...).
# 21 | Abi | April 18, 2006 2:17 AM
Here's my contribution to the "Race to Beat Jim Henley" (881 comments and counting ...).
# 22 | Chad Orzel | April 18, 2006 7:12 AM
to get to triple digits you'd need to mention the A-word or at the very least the L-word, but then you'll get triple digit comments on *all* your posts...the same comments in fact...
True.
I could probably also manage triple-digit comments by posting what I really think about PZ's Easter post, but I've already got stomach problems, so I won't bother.
There's a limit to what I'll do for comment traffic.
Here's my contribution to the "Race to Beat Jim Henley" (881 comments and counting ...).
I have no delusions of catching Jim. I'd like to at least match a slow day on Making Light, though...
# 23 | Torbjörn Larsson | April 18, 2006 8:15 AM
I am suspicious of diets, especially those that may be symmetry breaking. The effects relaxes back eventually.
The best recommendation for a lasting lifestyle I got is to pick nutritious items from different parts of physics, and to do exercises as often as possible.
# 24 | megan | April 18, 2006 3:27 PM
i really think that if you will just find an endorser for this theory - some sort of god or government think tank, you'll get even more posts.
# 25 | Ben V-L | April 19, 2006 5:54 AM
Woo-hoo! Post number 100. (base 5)