Biographies, history, personal accounts

[sbrothy]

Michael Ellis Fisher: CV and achievements

This text was supposed to be included in the book "50 years of the renormalization group, Dedicated to the Memory of Michael E. Fisher", edited by A. Aharony, O. Entin-Wohlman, D. Huse and L. Radzihovsky, World Scientific, Singapore (2024). It will be included in future printings and in the electronic version of the book.

 

[sbrothy]

Tensorial Quantum Mechanics: Back to Heisenberg and Beyond

Interesting footnote:

It is important to remark that most physicists are not interested at all in the many “interpretations” which are heatedlydebated in philosophical journals. As Maximilian Schlosshauer [38, p. 59] has recently described: “It is no secret that a shutup-and-calculate mentality pervades classrooms everywhere. How many physics students will ever hear their professor mentionthat there’s such a queer thing as different interpretations of the very theory they’re learning about? I have no representativedata to answer this question, but I suspect the percentage of such students would hardly exceed the single-digit range.”

EDIT:

Heh, I just found the official name for this kinda problem:

Newton's Flaming Laser Sword.

 

[sbrothy]

Some history:

Fusion divided: what prevented European collaboration on controlled thermonuclear fusion in 1958

I admit this one mostly intrigued me because of Sean M. Carrol. Also, I just think emergence is a cool concept.

What Emergence Can Possibly Mean

This one just kinda spoke to me intuitively:

Geometric Proof of the Irrationality of Square-Roots for Select Integers

Got all sorts of stuff going on. I'm trying to make my computer draw some fractals for nostalgia's sake but ended up wasting a lot of time on an invalid GPG server key problem. That now out of the way I'll be looking into John Baez beautiful roots as well. I have the GNU Scientific C++ API solving lots of 23th-degree polynomials but getting it on screen......

 

[pines-demon]

This page by the AIP is a good source for the history of cosmology: https://history.aip.org/exhibits/cosmology/index.htm

 

[sbrothy]

Wow, here we're really venturing into metaphysics land:

The game of metaphysics

"Metaphysics is traditionally conceived as aiming at the truth -- indeed, the most fundamental truths about the most general features of reality. Philosophical naturalists, urging that philosophical claims be grounded on science, have often assumed an eliminativist attitude towards metaphysics, consequently paying little attention to such a definition. In the more recent literature, however, naturalism has instead been taken to entail that the traditional conception of metaphysics can be accepted if and only if one is a scientific realist (and puts the right constraints on acceptable metaphysical claims). Here, we want to suggest that naturalists can, and perhaps should, pick a third option, based on a significant yet acceptable revision of the established understanding of metaphysics. More particularly, we will claim that a fictionalist approach to metaphysics is compatible with both the idea that the discipline inquires into the fundamental features of reality and naturalistic methodology; at the same time, it meshes well with both scientific realism and instrumentalism"

EDIT:

Stumbled upon this one last second:

Hard Proofs and Good Reasons

"Practicing mathematicians often assume that mathematical claims, when they are true, have good reasons to be true. Such a state of affairs is "unreasonable", in Wigner's sense, because basic results in computational complexity suggest that there are a large number of theorems that have only exponentially-long proofs, and such proofs can not serve as good reasons for the truths of what they establish. Either mathematicians are adept at encountering only the reasonable truths, or what mathematicians take to be good reasons do not always lead to equivalently good proofs. Both resolutions raise new problems: either, how it is that we come to care about the reasonable truths before we have any inkling of how they might be proved, or why there should be good reasons, beyond those of deductive proof, for the truth of mathematical statements. Taking this dilemma seriously provides a new way to make sense of the unstable ontologies found in contemporary mathematics, and new ways to understand how non-human, but intelligent, systems might found new mathematics on inhuman "alien" lemmas."

 

[sbrothy]

I stumbled across this paper on arXiv:

Nanopore DNA Sequencing Technology: A Sociological Perspective_{physics.soc-ph}

Nanopore sequencing, a next-generation sequencing technology, holds the potential to revolutionize multiple facets of life sciences, forensics, and healthcare. While previous research has focused on its technical intricacies and biomedical applications, this paper offers a unique perspective by scrutinizing the societal dimensions (ethical, legal, and social implications) of nanopore sequencing. Employing the lenses of Diffusion and Action Network Theory, we examine the dissemination of nanopore sequencing in society as a potential consumer product, contributing to the field of the sociology of technology. We investigate the possibility of interactions between human and nonhuman actors in developing nanopore technology to analyse how various stakeholders, such as companies, regulators, and researchers, shape the trajectory of the growth of nanopore sequencing. This work offers insights into the social construction of nanopore sequencing, shedding light on the actors, power dynamics, and socio-technical networks that shape its adoption and societal impact. Understanding the sociological dimensions of this transformative technology is vital for responsible development, equitable distribution, and inclusive integration into diverse societal contexts.

I'll admit it was sheer coincidence and that my knowlegde of this particuar subject is practically nil. It does however scare me that the specific topic has apparently matured to the point where it's sociological ramifications seem worth discussing.

I realize YMMV with reagrds to "matured", "sociological ramifications" and "discussing". They may in fact vary a lot!

Using Wikipedia - which I know we don't do here - as a simple timeline it also looks like this technology is coming of age right about now. Not suprisingly boosted by the Corona Pandemic.

I've tried looking around at Preprint Server for Health Sciences and Preprint Server for Biology but having a hard time gauging the validity (harder even than I have on arXiv, where I'm a far cry for being any sort of expert).

 

[BillTre]

Nanopore sequencing has these different effects in society etc. I am guessing its involvement and use in health issues and processes isthe basis of the sociological/ethical issues . It has long been the NIH's goal to make medicine more molecular and sequence based. This is the basis of their drive to individualized medicine. The ideal would be a genome sequence of every patient.
These are developing things.
Another medical use would be identifying pathogens (like Covid).

There are also research uses of course, but these probably don't fall into the bucket of sociological impacts being considered.

 

[sbrothy]

I'm obviously been neglecting a lot of medical science, so that when some of the new stuff creeps up on me it has a tendency to freak me out!

Whether it should I'm not altogether sure though. It's not that old pictures from the ancient movie "The Fly" pops up in my head, but I must admit I feel kind of old sometimes.

 

[BillTre]

but I must admit I feel kind of old sometimes.

Getting older every day.

 

[Hornbein]

Stumbled upon this one last second:

Hard Proofs and Good Reasons

"Practicing mathematicians often assume that mathematical claims, when they are true, have good reasons to be true. Such a state of affairs is "unreasonable", in Wigner's sense, because basic results in computational complexity suggest that there are a large number of theorems that have only exponentially-long proofs, and such proofs can not serve as good reasons for the truths of what they establish. Either mathematicians are adept at encountering only the reasonable truths, or what mathematicians take to be good reasons do not always lead to equivalently good proofs. Both resolutions raise new problems: either, how it is that we come to care about the reasonable truths before we have any inkling of how they might be proved, or why there should be good reasons, beyond those of deductive proof, for the truth of mathematical statements. Taking this dilemma seriously provides a new way to make sense of the unstable ontologies found in contemporary mathematics, and new ways to understand how non-human, but intelligent, systems might found new mathematics on inhuman "alien" lemmas."

I'm no expert but I'll say that what mathematicians are really interested in are "ideas" and insight as opposed to proving something. That is, it is hoped that a proof comes up with a new idea or technique that they can use in their own work. Mathematicians I'm told spend most of their time being "stuck", getting nowhere, hoping someone will come up with something that we get them over the hump. When it happens I'm told there is a "gold rush" of applying the new idea since getting in first is rewarded. It's nice if someone proves something in some complicated way but if it doesn't have a "new idea" then it isn't that big of a deal.

In some cases only a few -- sometimes a very few -- understand the proof. Then they may (or may not) come up with some newer simplified proof that gives insight. An example of that is Feynman diagrams and his "the particle takes every path" concept, which displaced the laborious math of Schwinger. (Yes, that's a simplification.)

An example of a proof that turned out to be not a big deal would be Hilbert's proof of the Waring Conjecture. It was complicated and didn't bring insight so it was impressive but didn't make a splash. Hilbert earned his fame elsewhere. An example of someone who was really good at insight was Alexander Grothendieck, whose category theory was widely useful and caught on bigtime. Georg Cantor came up with very simple proofs of important topics, mathematicians loved that. Kurt Goedel too.

Computerized proofs maybe began with the proof of the four color conjecture. It was nice that they proved it in this complicated way but it delivered no insight so it was a disappointment. More a relief in that whew, now we can work on something else. Lately I've heard that computers came up with a better compression algorithm. While this may not have provided much insight the result was a money saver and hence important. But this is more engineering than math.

If computers made a long complicated proof or refutation of the Riemann Hypothesis that provide no insight then I say it won't make much difference in mathematics. If someone then came up with a simpler proof that was understandable they might get the lion's share of the credit, as that is what mathematicians really want. Or if a computer comes up with a simple proof of something no one cares about, that won't mean much either.

 

[sbrothy]

I'm no expert but I'll say that what mathematicians are really interested in are "ideas" and insight as opposed to proving something. That is, it is hoped that a proof comes up with a new idea or technique that they can use in their own work. Mathematicians I'm told spend most of their time being "stuck", getting nowhere, hoping someone will come up with something that we get them over the hump. When it happens I'm told there is a "gold rush" of applying the new idea since getting in first is rewarded. It's nice if someone proves something in some complicated way but if it doesn't have a "new idea" then it isn't that big of a deal.

In some cases only a few -- sometimes a very few -- understand the proof. Then they may (or may not) come up with some newer simplified proof that gives insight. An example of that is Feynman diagrams and his "the particle takes every path" concept, which displaced the laborious math of Schwinger. (Yes, that's a simplification.)

An example of a proof that turned out to be not a big deal would be Hilbert's proof of the Waring Conjecture. It was complicated and didn't bring insight so it was impressive but didn't make a splash. Hilbert earned his fame elsewhere. An example of someone who was really good at insight was Alexander Grothendieck, whose category theory was widely useful and caught on bigtime. Georg Cantor came up with very simple proofs of important topics, mathematicians loved that. Kurt Goedel too.

Computerized proofs maybe began with the proof of the four color conjecture. It was nice that they proved it in this complicated way but it delivered no insight so it was a disappointment. More a relief in that whew, now we can work on something else. Lately I've heard that computers came up with a better compression algorithm. While this may not have provided much insight the result was a money saver and hence important. But this is more engineering than math.

If computers made a long complicated proof or refutation of the Riemann Hypothesis that provide no insight then I say it won't make much difference in mathematics. If someone then came up with a simpler proof that was understandable they might get the lion's share of the credit, as that is what mathematicians really want. Or if a computer comes up with a simple proof of something no one cares about, that won't mean much either.

I'm sure. I'd expect the ultimate goal is the kind of immortality you get by getting a technique, discipline or branch named after you. Like Riemannian geometry, Clifford algebra or an Einstein ring. Heck, perhaps even one or more constants of nature. Newton did pretty good there, at least one constant of nature and a branch of mathematics!

WIKI: Things named after scientists

Tough luck when it goes wrong and someone else gets the credit, as in the example I recently mentioned here with H.C Ørsted. Or when it's something more obscure: first time I read about the "Killing-vector" it gave me a seconds pause ;)


There's a fun one here too:

Alexander von Humboldt


Many of these people also become obsessed and sometimes the line between genius and schizophrenia is a tight walk as shown in A Beautiful Mind.

The use of computers complicates stuff too yeah. I actually thought the 4-color thingy was still a conjecture but I was thinking of the ABC-one.

I'll admit that's one reason I like the historical and philosophical parts of the hard sciences. Sadly, I'm simply not that smart. I could have closed some of the gap with education but I don't think I'd ever achieve brilliance.

I'll just be thankful I can tie my shoelaces and appreciate the beauty in the fact that creation itself might one day be understood. If not by me personally at least weird gadgets almost always fall off the science-tree.

 

[sbrothy]

Courtesy of Woit's blog I see Richard S. Hamilton and Walter Neumann passed away.

Since Woit already put various biographies and stuff together I thought it appropiate to link directly there.