Beauties and Beasts

Jim Holt (a name some of my old friends will likely recognize) has a rather well written article in The New Yorker about the conflict in string theory. I am no string theorist - though I can certainly toss the occasional "nonperturbative tests of Ads/CFT correspondence" into my work when neccessary (don't judge, you all do it) - and Peter Woit has already blogged more directly about it at Not Even Wrong, but I would like to mention a bit that struck me about the article.

Warning: the article quotes Woit and Smolin more than Susskind, so he might be biased for it (since the reader does not yet know my style of prose, I should say that this comment is made with tongue firmly in cheek; I believe that everyone is biased... Except me).

It seems that the debate about whether "beauty" is an apporpriate characteristic by which to judge a physical theory is misplaced. The author recalls the usual argument:

Perhaps, some have conjectured, a kind of cultural Darwinism has drilled it into us to take aesthetic pleasure in theories that are more likely to be true. Or perhaps physicists are somehow inclined to choose problems that have beautiful solutions rather than messy ones. Or perhaps nature itself, at its most fundamental level, possesses an abstract beauty that a true theory is bound to mirror.

It seems to me that the evolution of the physicists notion of beauty is not quite Darwinic (is that a word?). I do not see the small and seemingly randomn changes in aesthetic tempermant that would march science forward. Perhaps in previous centuries, when collaborations were smaller and communicatiions less rapid, it was possible for a physicist to pass a specific aesthetic sensibility to a student, who would modify that by their own perspectives and ideas into something a bit different and - perhaps - a bit better.

Now-a-days though, it would seem that aesthetics is governed more by group think. Blogs and books and articles in the New Yorker can diseminate opinions and arguments (mostly of an elite and stubborn few, though you may argue this point) with astonishing efficiency. Peoples opinions and prejudices are reinforced by daily sessions of public rumination and/or bickering on blog threads, chalkboards and snippets of quotes from the experts - arrayed by journalists in articles in the New Yorker to maximize the appearence of seething animosity between well entrenched camps of dogmatists.

So where are we? Society has proven time and time again that group think stunts the evolution of ideas in some rather dramatic ways (I'm thinking here war time Germany and present day (wartime?) america), and that the usual recourse of such a program is that the masses fall in line behind those in power. This has been almost wholly true of the
current situation in HET, though certainly the less dogmatic philosophy recently adopted in the creation of the Perimeter Institute (and others?) is noble. My fear is that the dogmatists will start seething with some real animosity (the current argument, sans Luboš Motl, seems to actually be fairly tame).

Can't we agree that physics is simply not in an apropriate position to postulate la théorie de tout, and all go about doing our very interesting and sometimes fulfilling work?

Is the funding for string theory really dependent on its being the end-all-be-all?

I doubt it, string theory has provided (and motivated) some remarkably interesting results accross many disciplines.

Is its current status as pop-phys publisher's favorite topic dependent?

Maybe a bit, but I would venture that much of the general public is actually quite ready to read the books of those like Greene and Randall for what they really are - well written depictions of potential realities (exciting realities if you're an undergrad philosophy student) from the imaginations of some of the worlds top physicists 1.

Are the string physicists afraid that without the mistique of the ultimate knowledge to draw in all the best grad students, that they'll be left having to compete for good students like everyone else?

I doubt they're that conniving (and I think that the mistique of being the supposedly most high brow caste of the discipline is enough to wooh most of them either way).

So screw it! Let yr hair down a bit! Take the high road! If you cannot agree on the applicability of the scientists dictum on testability, than at least agree on the scientists dictum on the expression of possibles: weight all discussions of final theories with the apropriate modifiers of uncertainty, and all the critques of other peoples babies with the appropriate modifiers of gentility.

Oh, and just to prove I'm not stuffy: all yr theories are "failures" and yr babies look like horses! Just kidding! Gawd, don't take yrself so seriously!

I'm not done with this topic, but I've spent enough time at this today. Join me next time when I discuss "Pretty girls aren't stringy, or so says Guido Dolci (who apparently agrees with this blogger that its time for physics and fashion to collide!)"

Be sure to tune in!


1.) Not that I am at all implying that either of these authors uses a heavy
hand in implying the absolute reality of string theory, but I can say
from the experience of speaking with readers from the general public,
that they certainly walk away (from Brian's book at least) strongly
inclined to believe in those tiny little cellists)

Life is fleeting and oh so strange.

Ever feel surrounded? Ever feel like something's just not right? Perhaps like you just don't belong? Sometimes I feel like that. And sometimes I feel like this:




Ever felt like the world is on yr shoulders? Like you just couldn't possibly move another inch? Ever feel like, no matter how hard you stare at this paper, yr eyelids are just enevitably going to close soon? Sometimes I feel like that. And sometimes I feel like this:

Sex, Religion and Politics (and its only my second post!)

Tried to write this yesterday but I got waylaid. I was very excited to hear that the popular gay mayor of Germany's most populated city has grandiose political ambitions to match the expectations of that population. Solid chance he'll end up the first gay chancellor in German history in the not too distant future. I find that terrific. I love gay people in public position. I just trust them more I think. Surely its because I assume a higher concentration of liberal attitudes with the gay mind.

The new-ish leader of the Parti Quebecoise is young, gay and with a history of cocaine use back in college. Seems like a terrific guy to me. Oh, well, he is a seperatist. He wants to split one of my favorite countries into three pieces, further damaging the already vulnerable economy of the eastern provinces from which I was spawned. But see, I can look past all that because he's gay (and young and with a history of drug abuse). I just really appreciate characteristics like that in my politicians. He isn't the leader of the province yet, but surely he will be in a couple years.

Then there is the hope of the new gay anglican bishop and possible head of the Newark diocese. Newark has a diocese? Hmm... Doesn't seem like the most glamorous spot, but I'd still love to see more gay priests in the fancy bishop cloth. Maybe I'll find god. Nah.

Good stuff.

That reminds me. There is a congressman in Chicago named Jesse Jackson Jr. who named his son Jesse III and his daughter Jessica. Is that disturbing? Who is this guy? Either way. There is just something terribly weird about that. I wonder if he made his wife change her name to Jessica too. Probably.

Not-a-Blogger

I am really not a blogger.

Notablogger was taken though, and so the most firm statement I am able to make is that I am not a real blogger. This is probably a sufficiently harsh critique of my blogging skills (and my general communication skills really) and so I will not attempt to debase myself or my writing further.

Why then am I here? I don't know really.
I suppose it is meant to be an attempt at rendering the supposed therapeutic advantages of live journaling to the benefit of my psyche. We shall see if my efforts bear fruit and I will try - when possible - to include a running discussion of these successes/ failures as a topic of this blog.

I have recently relocated from Montreal to Chicago. Quite a culture shock really, but not nearly as dramatic as the extreme dislocation I experienced in my previous move from Austin to Montreal. That was culture shock. This is more a cultural tremor, personified surely in the sudden anxiety I experience each time an el train passes over my head. I am told the el system was designed to last 30 years. Many parts of it look absolutely ancient, as if design specifics were stolen from crumbled roman aqueducts, but with much less structural engineering involved.

Not that I dislike the aesthetic by any means. I have always been rather fond of degradation.

I have now a 1.25 hour commute twice daily. This has increased the amount of time I have for reading fiction by about 100,000%. This gives me something quite obvious to write blog entries about, and so part of this blog can be considered an extension of the somewhat large amount of "wasted" time that I already spend not doing work.

Surely though this digital psychiatric facility is positioned to be rather helpful in my academic pursuits. I have frequently rued the fact that I have no one that I can talk to about lattice gauge theory and effective field theory and nonperturbative supersymmetry and trying to draw feynman diagrams in stupid latex picture environment and what-not. Perhaps by talking directly into the digital ether of the internet, I can garner at least the benefits of one side of a scientific discourse. That being, of course, listening to myself spew half-wrong gibberish about perturbations and potentials, but at least its something.

One thing I need to say, just in case anyone is reading this. If you catch me saying assumably, please remind me that it is not a word and I really mean presumably. I am trying desperately to break this habit, and truly the integrity of my relationship might very well rest on my success. Probably not though. As long as I don't pass it on to our children (theoretical children, not real ones), she will probably allow me to continue cohabitation with less than grammatical perfection.
I read alot of news also. Usually I wish that I didn't read as much, but I can't really help it. I read 3 articles today about Chavez thinking that Noam Chomsky was dead! That's just overkill I think. Chomsky's response was sort of interesting though. I wonder if they will meet. What do you think they would talk about?

"Si Presidente Chavez, senor Bush does remarkably ressemble your catholic notion of satan."

"That's very interesting; I was unaware that he shed sulfur. Is it from his cloven hooves, or is it somehow an unavoidable consequence of his dawning of the flesh of the human?"

Anything else interesting today? Oh yes, President Musharraf claims that the guy with the ambiguously violent sounding name - Armitage - threatened to "bomb Pakistan back to the stone age" on Sept. 13th 2001 if they did not cooperate with the Bush administrations 7 points. The NYT is nice enough to quote a "south Asia specialist" who use to work for the state deparment in saying that she finds it hard to believe that such an exchange would take place.

Uh huh. Sure. Because the US never uses threats to accomplish diplomacy? Or maybe because
Army-tage is a friend of hers and she knows for fact that he spends his nights in footed PJ's cuddling a room full of teddy bears with names like "Wallace" and simply doesn't have a violent bone in his body? (sorry, my metaphor may have gotten out of hand there.)

No! She actually says that Armitage probably would not have threatened a sovereign nation with penultimate destruction because that part was already implied by the US stance in the first place!! Here's the quote if I can figure out how to do this:

'I would find it difficult to believe he talked about bombing Pakistan specifically because, while I don’t know the exact contents of the conversation, I do know it was a pretty firm ultimatum' as far as taking sides with the United States or supporting the Taliban.

Well, that only took me about 10 minutes. This is just silly to me. Don't reporters realize the irony of these statements?

-- A goverment official today was acused of threatening to anihilate a sovereign nation, sometime allie, and minor nuclear power. The administration refused to comment on the accusation, but an expert told us "why would an official threaten a country with destruction when we already have a standing threat against that country?"

I feel better already.

In other news, Lucy had a baby, the total wealth of the top 400 richest americans increased by 120 billion$ in the last year and yesterday we learned that Richard Branson wants to fight global warming by investing 3 billion$ in alternative energy.

Two of these three stories are kind of cool and one sort of sucks. Can you guess which one? If you guessed b) than congratulations, you can spot the horrendous capitalist glutony that promises to cripple the fragile economic structure in the US. This amounts to about a 10% increase, which might be reasonable if it coincided with a 10% increase in spendable income for the 37 million or so Americans living below the poverty line but, alas, it does not. Oh well, at least Warren Buffet is giving all his money to The Gates Foundation to fight poverty. I like the sound of that guy. Even if he is from Omaha. He sounds like a real principled old bastard. I wonder if its easier or harder to be principled if you are worth 46 billion$. Supposedly he still lives in a house in Omaha that he bought in the 50's for 60 thousand dollars or so. I wonder how much work he's done on it. He also owns a million dollar house in California of course, but that's nothing compared to the crazy estate Michael Dell has just outside Austin, and Buffet's like 3 times richer than him!

Anyway. Tangent. I'm not obsessed with rich people! I swear!

On another related note, the honorable Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago, Il, vetoed a bill that would have forced big box stores like wally-mart to pay a living wage of 10$ an hour. Aparently he got some threats, I mean advice, from some walmart people about the potential movement of stores outside the city limits. I guess it originally went through the city council 35 -14, and to override the veto it needs (in another vote, for some reason that is completely beyond me) 34 votes. Some council members are saying that they might be ready to change their votes from back in july. I wonder if they have also been talking to the Waltons, who btw, scored big in the forbies 400 today with 5 fucking Waltons tieing for 4th place with almost 19 billion$ each. Holy shit that's alot of money. Someday they'll have to split the list into two: 400 top riches Americans, and 400 top richest Waltons. Of course, America might be renamed Walmerica by then, so I would wait to start printing t-shirts and bumper stickers.

ok shit. I have blogged too long. This is kind of fun. I definately am feeling the therapeutical effects. Now I dont even need to work out tonight!

This picture I am including for no good reason. Yes. That's me on the right.