 |
 |
Thanks to everyone who took a look. I'm very glad the article and links were useful, Candice. I shall be very interested to read the poem when it's finished. The Updike poem I've known and loved for a long time, except that the anti-science ending irritates me. I always mentally re- write it as: ... - I call It wonderful. You call it crass? I think there *is* more interaction between the arts and the sciences these days, and more mutual respect. It's not only that (some) scientists are, as you say, more modest about the scope of their demesne, but also that (some) artists are more prepared (as you obviously are, Candice) to take a serious interest in science. Ten years ago, I gained the impression that most science poetry was either bad poetry, bad science or anti-science. These days I'm reading much more good stuff that draws effectively from science without feeling the need to kick it in the nadgers. I'm not convinced that Sokal is a throwback, but that's probably a different discussion entirely. Gerald, a couple of points about your poem. I think you'd be better off using "synchrotron" rather than "cyclotron" as the latter tends to be pint-sized. Synchrotrons are the big buggers. And although one can infer the presence of neutrinos from bubble chamber photographs, you're very unlikely to see the actual track of one since, as Updike says, they "...do not interact at all." Well, not very much, anyway. Best, -- Peter http://www.hphoward.demon.co.uk/poetry/