Cover Image: May 2010 Scientific American Magazine See Inside

140-Character Study: What if Everyone Had Always Been on Twitter at the Same Time?

Here is what might happen if the science greats "tweeted."















Share on Tumblr

RogerToryPete Tweet!



This article was originally published with the title 140-Character Study.



Subscribe     Buy This Issue

Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.

20 Comments

Add Comment
View
  1. 1. tovX 08:37 AM 4/23/10

    JimAlEwing @HairyAlbert E's McTwo

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  2. 2. tovX 08:38 AM 4/23/10

    JimAlEwing @HairyAlbert E's McTwo

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  3. 3. benonemusic 09:01 AM 4/23/10

    Great piece! I also appreciated your reference to the Odd Couple episode in which Felix and Oscar were on the Password game show (Aristophanes=Ridiculous)

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  4. 4. weltschmerz 10:31 AM 4/23/10

    Yeah, nice one. But you're missing an important fact. 99.999% percent of tweets are completely irrelevant to human history, and 99.9% of tweeters are people who just don't matter. Most real scientists don't tweet on their findings like that. I know you know that, but I just don't like Tweeter being given an importance it clearly doesn't have and will never have.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  5. 5. quantumgravity666 11:47 AM 4/23/10

    One of your finest pieces. You could put in something like the following.
    Plancksalot @ hairy albert: did you get my packet (In reference to the fundamental notion of quantum of energy Max Planck came up with in 1900).
    But it still is the most elegant burlesque of Twitter.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  6. 6. galaxy_man 01:49 PM 4/23/10

    LikeAShroed @ Plancksalot: Have you seen my cat?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  7. 7. nolsen311 in reply to weltschmerz 02:04 PM 4/23/10

    @weltschmerz
    You're missing an important fact: 99.9% of Human History is irrelevant to human history.

    Twitter is just a tool, don't disparage just because you don't see any use for it. So what? Don't use it.

    Great article...but a real pain to view on the Droid. The pop-over subscription ad really gets in the way and isn't easy to close.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  8. 8. danshil 12:53 AM 4/24/10

    Fun article. Loved the Gretzky reference.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  9. 9. danshil 12:53 AM 4/24/10

    Fun article. Loved the Gretzky reference.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  10. 10. HowDidYouGetThere 05:54 AM 4/24/10

    Brilliant - you're the Master of the Universe for laugh out loud comedy that manages to by-pass all gastric bodily functions, and make its way to the neuro-circuitry.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  11. 11. biggus56 05:58 AM 4/24/10

    I don't know which made me smile more: the article, or my embarrassment at spending *far* too long working out who OzAScarecrow is... I'm just glad I didn't try to prove his "theorem".

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  12. 12. quantumgravity666 11:40 AM 4/24/10

    hairy albert@ likeashroed: It is very fuzzy, much like my hair. I'm off to be the head of Israel. Aaaah, Nazi's!

    @galaxy_man: you could call him 'likeashroedingstone'.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  13. 13. Tupars 04:38 PM 4/25/10

    Very similar thing here: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1198

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  14. 14. Dr_PO 02:01 AM 4/29/10

    I wrote this a couple of months ago on the same theme http://thirdopinion.nu/2010/01/twitter-philosophy/

    /P.O.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  15. 15. Vagrantseeker 01:11 PM 5/3/10

    Brilliant. Loved the "let's make applesauce" line. And wow, there's SJGould too. :)


    I'm confused which Plancksalot one I like more. @quantumgravity666 @galaxy_man :P

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  16. 16. Lucian 03:23 PM 5/3/10

    Love it. A shot the Huffington Post, too. "seriously, you're embarrassing us." hahaha

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  17. 17. MensaJeff in reply to weltschmerz 10:06 PM 5/3/10

    "People who just don't matter"?
    Wow. Is there still room in your fan club? Oh, I'll bet you have SO many friends already.

    I wish I could be like you, so I could do the right thing and kill myself.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  18. 18. sueksen in reply to weltschmerz 06:34 PM 5/7/10

    99.9% of tweeters are people that don't matter?? I'm not a tweeter . . . do you have a rate of importance on non tweeters?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  19. 19. PeteRonai in reply to weltschmerz 05:58 PM 6/22/10

    @Weltschmerz
    Don't you know that 99.999% of statistics are erroneous?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  20. 20. PeteRonai in reply to weltschmerz 06:04 PM 6/22/10

    @Weltschmerz
    Don't you know that 99.999% of statistics are erroneous?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American Editors

More »

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

Solve Innovation Challenges

Powered By: Innocentive

  SA Digital

Latest from SA Blog Network

  SA Digital

Science Jobs of the Week

Email this Article

140-Character Study: What if Everyone Had Always Been on Twitter at the Same Time?: Scientific American Magazine

X
Scientific American Magazine

Subscribe Today

Save 66% off the cover price and get a free gift!

Learn More >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X