Today, we know that time travel need not be confined to myths, science fiction, Hollywood movies, or even speculation by theoretical physicists. Time travel is possible. For example, an object traveling at high speeds ages more slowly than a stationary object. This means that if you were to travel into outer space and return, moving close to light speed, you could travel thousands of years into the Earth's future.
Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do.
My work on prime gaps lead to lots of media coverage, some good, some bad, some ugly, and some merely ridiculous. For example, a reporter of our university newspaper, who admitted that he is still learning English, wrote that "Prof. Goldston solved one of the most controversial problems in the prime number theory last month with support from his Turkish partner. "
There is, however, no universal recipe for scientific advance. It is a matter of groping forward into terra incognita of the outer world by means of methods which should be adapted to the circumstances.
Our five senses are faulty data-taking devices, and they need help.
Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical mechanics, died in 1906 by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on the work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study statistical mechanics.
I think that the discovery of antimatter was perhaps the biggest jump of all the big jumps in physics in our century.
There is no adequate defense, except stupidity, against the impact of a new idea.
A critic is a man who creates nothing and thereby feels qualified to judge the work of creative men. There is logic in this; he is unbiased, he hates all creative people equally.
There can be no ultimate statements science: there can be no statements in science which can not be tested, and therefore none which cannot in principle be refuted, by falsifying some of the conclusions which can be deduced from them.
Happiness hates the timid. So does science.
Only art and science make us suspect the existence of life to a higher level, and maybe also instill hope thereof.
Man is not a machine,. . . although man most certainly processes information, he does not necessarily process it in the way computers do. Computers and men are not species of the same genus. . . . . No other organism, and certainly no computer, can be made to confront genuine human problems in human terms. . . . However much intelligence computers may attain, now or in the future, theirs must always be an intelligence alien to genuine human problems and concerns.
Why it is that animals, instead of developing in a simple and straightforward way, undergo in the course of their growth a series of complicated changes, during which they often acquire organs which have no function, and which, after remaining visible for a short time, disappear without leaving a trace. . . To the Darwinian, the explanation of such facts is obvious. The stage when the tadpole breathes by gills is a repetition of the stage when the ancestors of the frog had not advanced in the scale of development beyond a fish.
All good research-whether for science or for a book-is a form of obsession.
Politics is no exact science.
Evolution. . Just the right formula of science and comedy may get moviegoers through the door.
The more chaos there is, the more science holds on to abstract systems of control, and the more chaos is engendered.
What science cannot declare, art can suggest; what art suggests silently, poetry speaks aloud; but what poetry fails to explain in words, music can express. Whoever knows the mystery of vibrations indeed knows all things.
The best way of increasing the [average] intelligence of scientists would be to reduce their number.
