There once were two girls, Betty and Veronica, who loved a boy. One was a cute blonde girl who didn’t like being called cute and one was a sexy brunette with big cans who wanted to be respected for her brains. The blonde girl liked the bad boys and the the brunette girl liked … the bad boys. Yes, even when they were over the age of 30, Betty and Veronica still liked the bad boys, which defies logic and common sense. That they both like the same bad boy makes even less sense.

So Betty marries a bad boy whose whose music I have never listened to, mostly because I don’t use hairspray. Veronica marries a bad boy with a penchant for hookers and cocaine. They both figured this would be a recipe for success, because bad boys love to be changed. Betty and Veronica learned a valuable lesson about why they should have fought over Archie instead.

Why bring this up? Because one of the science groupies in blogdom who lurk without commenting wrote me an email poem which quite cleverly referenced the whole David Spade/Heather Locklear madness of a few weeks ago. There is no more fitting allegory for Betty and Veronica than Heather Locklear and Denise Richards, which is why this parable needs two parts. The question via poem goes:

Cash, you are my final chance
Of finding the true happenstance

What I don’t understand is just why they
Can’t like one another, at the end of the day?

I agree about the baffling nature of this whole thing. You know things have gone crazy when the girl from Wild Things is trying to take the moral high ground.

And you know she is playing for keeps when all Charlie Sheen does is ask to see his kids and she demands it be in the presence of a police officer, calls him a pedophile, and tells the world he kills hookers.

Thus my answer, in rhyming verse:

You came to Cash, guru of physics
Who writes sexy equations and confounds his critics

My prediction is this, sure they’re all just plain crazies,
But their pussy’s are still purring, not pushing up daisies.

In other words, Betty and Veronica aren’t exactly done with their bad boys yet. And you can bet there will be a poem with updates in the future.

Here’s all you need to get out of any barroom argument on motion, large and small (bonus - by using the terms “large” and “small” motion, you won’t gain anything at all in the bar, but physicists are bound to notice you did your homework), with your dignity intact:

1) Einstein was not a fan of quantum mechanics. His “spooky action at a distance” comment was not an endorsement. But by stating that light was both a particle and a wave he was probably the founder of quantum physics.

2) Neils Bohr and other guys pretty much dismissed Einstein by simply stating that they were dealing with things so small that the act of visualizing or measuring them changed them into something else. So scientific experiments wouldn’t work.

3) Schroedinger had his famous cat, who was half-dead and half-alive at the same time and the inspiration for this funny bit of scientific poetry. This whole theory threw Einstein into a rage, whence he issued his “God does not roll dice with the universe” line.

God may not throw dice but he may have a sense of humor. Or irony, if you use the language like Alanis Morrisette does.

The guys who agreed with Bohr went off and built atomic bombs using, in part, quantum phyics. Einstein got pushed aside as a relic. Now it turns out he may have been more right than wrong. Where’s the humor in that? Well, if you can be dead and alive and right and wrong, you can also be a particle and a wave.

And that’s pretty funny no matter what religion you are.