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.