Cleverness vs. Wisdom
Posted by: erik scothron on 10 April 2006
Following on from the cleverness vs. wisdom tangent on the maturity thread I submit the following:
A friend of mine who lectures at Princeton asked me to review a book written by Princeton Professor Stephen L. Adler called ‘QUANTUM THEORY as an emergent phenomenon’. In Borders bookshop in the UK this book retails at £40 for under 200 pages.
The blurb on the back cover reads as follows:
‘Quantum mechanics is our most successful physical theory, however, it raises conceptual issues that have perplexed physicists and philosophers of science for decades. This book develops a new approach, based on the proposal that the quantum theory is not a complete final theory, but is in fact an emergent phenomenon arising from a deeper level of dynamics. The dynamics at his level is taken to be an extension of classical dynamics to non-commuting matrix variables, with cyclic permutation inside a trace used as the basic calculational tool. With plausible assumptions, quantum theory is shown to emerge as the statistical thermodynamics of this underlying theory, with canonical commutation-anti-commutation relations derived from a generalized equipartition theorum. Brownian motion corrections to this thermodynamics are argued to lead to state vector and to probabilistic interpretation of quantum theory, making contact with recent phenomenological proposals for stochastic modifications to schrodinger dynamics‘.
Now, If you are clever you will understand what this means.
However, if you are wise you will dump this tedious rubbish in the bin and spend your £40 on a few bottles of wine and some lemsip.
Cheers,
Erik
Posted on: 10 April 2006 by Doug Graham
Just about to hit the Lemsip....
Posted on: 10 April 2006 by nicnaim
Strewth,
Spock has turned you all into Lemsip junkies. Just say no, unless you have genuinely have a cold, and do not forget to read the label.
Nic
Posted on: 10 April 2006 by u5227470736789439
I got half way down the blurb and lost interest! However I'll stick with wine, or probably Vodka again! One of my collgues has promissed to bring me back all he can get away with when he goes back to see his lady for a week!
Fredrik
How wisdom comes into anything I do however is a big question. The words wisdom and Fredrik should definately not be used in the same sentence!
Posted on: 10 April 2006 by Tam
Given my degree was in Engineering I normally enjoy (to a greater or lesser extent) reading scientific or technical stuff but I couldn't get further than about half-way through the synopsis without my eyes glazing. In summary Erik, I thought I was reasonably clever and I haven't a clue.
Where's my Talisker?
regards, Tam
Posted on: 10 April 2006 by Alexander
It would be tempting to actually submit a review listing 40 pounds worth of excellent wine.
If the book's target audience is people who are into hidden variable approaches of quantum mechanics, then it does a nice job of telling other people not to bother. Everyone's happy then. If the book is aimed at a broader audience, then it would be more direct and honest to write on the back cover "this professor is very smart" instead.
Posted on: 10 April 2006 by erik scothron
quote:
Originally posted by AlexanderVH:
It would be tempting to actually submit a review listing 40 pounds worth of excellent wine.
If the book's target audience is people who are into hidden variable approaches of quantum mechanics, then it does a nice job of telling other people not to bother. Everyone's happy then. If the book is aimed at a broader audience, then it would be more direct and honest to write on the back cover "this professor is very smart" instead.
Alexander,
I have not had a chance to dig into it yet but I suspect hidden variables play a part. Personally I zoomed in on the most important words which were IMO 'plausible assumptions'. To suggest that quantum theory emerges from classical dynamics is problematic in my view and I think that precisely the opposite may be the case and I think David Bohm was smarter than Prof. Adler and wiser too maybe.
Regards,
Erik
Posted on: 11 April 2006 by Beano
Jargon is the specialist language of a group of people, usually belonging to the same occupation.
And is not meant to be comprehensible to the non-specialist.
In other words a closed language.
Paul
Posted on: 11 April 2006 by wellyspyder
The alleged very clever people have their own language and they just do not know how to communicate with commoners. Hence the saying "nutty professor" or "mad scientist".
Posted on: 11 April 2006 by Beano
This closed language is frequently found in books on computing, psychology and sociology. I call it mechanical writing, as in expert to expert, but it serves its purpose.
I personally don't like it when someone uses jargon to make the ordinary sound impressive!
As in Job advertisements,IE, A nice 'Environment' to work in (surroundings, region)would suffice; or our...Dynamic environment( place to work);a fast moving high technology environment company working overseas in a multi-cultural environment (we deal with foreigners).
I could go on, or you could add any number of your own.
Paul
Posted on: 11 April 2006 by rodwsmith
"Wisdom is the acceptance that taste is subjective."
As I'm sure someone once said.
Viz.:
Children think everyone likes what they like.
Young people think everyone should like what they like.
Adults think it would be nice if people liked what they like.
Wise people couldn't care less whether other people like what they like.
Retsina, anyone?
Posted on: 11 April 2006 by Rasher
The Quantum Theory blurb is nothing more than a summing up of the philisophical argument for quantum theory, and doesn't offer any science. As such it is maybe clever in a specialist way, but dumb insofar as it's unreadable and uninteresting except to socially disfunctional leather elbow patched nerd (who would know the story anyway), and ultimately a waste of paper and time. Whereas here, we can write absolute bollocks every day and we all read it and respond, which I think makes us less of a waste of space and less socially disfunctional. So that means that all of us here on the forum are not only cleverer than the Prof, but wiser too.
Posted on: 11 April 2006 by living in lancs yearning for yorks
It is surely more clever to write something easily understandable about a complex subject than it is to write something difficult to understand about the same subject.
Posted on: 11 April 2006 by Roy T
Clint once said "a wise man knows his limitations" but in the case of this book review it may be true and it may be false both at the same time.
Posted on: 11 April 2006 by erik scothron
quote:
Originally posted by Rasher:
The Quantum Theory blurb is nothing more than a summing up of the philisophical argument for quantum theory, and doesn't offer any science. As such it is maybe clever in a specialist way, but dumb insofar as it's unreadable and uninteresting except to socially disfunctional leather elbow patched nerd (who would know the story anyway), and ultimately a waste of paper and time. Whereas here, we can write absolute bollocks every day and we all read it and respond, which I think makes us less of a waste of space and less socially disfunctional. So that means that all of us here on the forum are not only cleverer than the Prof, but wiser too.
Dear Rasher,
As ever you are the voice of reason. I only meant my post as a joke and not a debate but some have raised interesting points here. The book, as opposed to the blurb does contain science, indeed it contains long ramblings on most pages of advanced alebraic formula (which I dont pretend to understand)but as I have pointed out the Profs assumptions are clearly wrong IMO and thus his proofs are just mathematical masurbation and i feel I dont have a need to analyse his formula just his assumptions and interpretations. Too many scientists IMO reify a theory as fact or law because they canmake the maths work, one mathematician looney I know says mathematics is the language of reality.
I agree that understanding the book might give a clever person more insight into one particular theory but how would that improve his life or give he or she some wisdom? You correctly point this out. That was really why I called it 'rubbish' as in a sense it is (clever or not).
All this is only my opinion and too be honest I don't have a PH.D from princeton. I'm thinking of setting up a university and I will award myself one and you too Rasher and anyone else on the forum for that matter, we are undoubtedly more cleverererer than the prof and more wise too.
Regards,
Erik
ps - I do not advocate the drinking of wine and lemsip. I hardly drink at all and lemsip is rubbish and mixing the two is just plain foolish. I am pleased my little joke has sparked some comment on an interesting issue though.
Posted on: 11 April 2006 by erik scothron
quote:
Originally posted by living in lancs yearning for yorks:
It is surely more clever to write something easily understandable about a complex subject than it is to write something difficult to understand about the same subject.
Yes, I was surprised to see it on a shelf in Borders, its published by Oxford Universtiy Press and is in no way 'popular science'. I doubt I will read it all may take some quotes from it for an article I am writing. There are some very good quantum theory popolar science books out there for anyone who is interested. I am happy to recommend some.
Posted on: 11 April 2006 by erik scothron
quote:
Originally posted by Beano:
This closed language is frequently found in books on computing, psychology and sociology. I call it mechanical writing, as in expert to expert, but it serves its purpose.
I personally don't like it when someone uses jargon to make the ordinary sound impressive!
As in Job advertisements,IE, A nice 'Environment' to work in (surroundings, region)would suffice; or our...Dynamic environment( place to work);a fast moving high technology environment company working overseas in a multi-cultural environment (we deal with foreigners).
I could go on, or you could add any number of your own.
Paul
Yes, I agree. Those dim-wits who are severley bitten by jargonese use it as a means of sniffing someone out. When two people with the same disease meet they swap jargon and gain acceptence like two dogs sniffing each others arses. If on the other hand one offers jargon and the jargon is not reciprocated there is non-acceptence. This is particularly annoying when one actually says the same thing but in other words i.e. one uses words with the same meaning but the meaning is lost on the person infected by jargonese so they do not accept you, thus you fail to impress when in reality you are miles ahead of them. I have experienced this in a number of fields. Unfortunately it is best to play the game with job interviews or when selling or offering something or play your own game, make your own rules and create your own jargon!
Posted on: 12 April 2006 by casman
quote:
Originally posted by rodwsmith:
"Wisdom is the acceptance that taste is subjective."
As I'm sure someone once said.
Viz.:
Children think everyone likes what they like.
Young people think everyone should like what they like.
Adults think it would be nice if people liked what they like.
Wise people couldn't care less whether other people like what they like.
Retsina, anyone?
well put!
Posted on: 12 April 2006 by Jim Lawson
Rasher
"The Quantum Theory blurb is nothing more than a summing up of the philisophical argument"
Erm, is that not what the blurb on the outside of a book is supposed to do; sum up the contents?
Jim
Posted on: 13 April 2006 by Rasher
Yeah..but you miss the point; the book appears to be more philisophical argument about quantum theory than the actual science of it.
Posted on: 13 April 2006 by Alexander
quote:
Originally posted by Rasher:
Yeah..but you miss the point; the book appears to be more philisophical argument about quantum theory than the actual science of it.
I don't see much wrong with this book really. One could claim it's peripheral or old hat. I wouldn't conclude it's bad science-there's a lot of bad science in and around quantum mechanics.
I'm all for it that they keep fooling around with the fundamentals.
Obviously that shouldn't keep anyone from using the blurb to launch a discussion on jargon, ivory towers and the like.
Posted on: 13 April 2006 by Rasher
quote:
Originally posted by AlexanderVH:
I'm all for it that they keep fooling around with the fundamentals.
Especially as, IMO, it has become too complicated to be likely to be correct. Correct theories are usually the simple ones (not that I know anything about it).
Posted on: 13 April 2006 by Alexander
quote:
Originally posted by erik scothron:
I have not had a chance to dig into it yet but I suspect hidden variables play a part. Personally I zoomed in on the most important words which were IMO 'plausible assumptions'. To suggest that quantum theory emerges from classical dynamics is problematic in my view and I think that precisely the opposite may be the case and I think David Bohm was smarter than Prof. Adler and wiser too maybe.
'Plausible assumptions' does make one ticklish, doesn't it
But there probably was just not enough space in the margin to write the whole proof.
I noticed your link to Zurek in the biblical swine thread.
I understand he did important work on the 'classical from quantummechanical' subject.
You do like David Bohm
I read one book long ago which he wrote with David Peat.
I forgot the title but the last chapter was about play and creativity.
There is something called 'Bohm dialogue' which I should look up sometime.
It contrasts nicely with Dawkins' concept of memes.
Murray Gell-Man talks briefly about Bohm in "The Quark and the Jaguar" which was published shortly after Bohm died.
Posted on: 13 April 2006 by Alexander
quote:
Originally posted by Rasher:
quote:
Originally posted by AlexanderVH:
I'm all for it that they keep fooling around with the fundamentals.
Especially as, IMO, it has become too complicated to be likely to be correct. Correct theories are usually the simple ones (not that I know anything about it).
Who knows, maybe that applies to the above book also. Maybe it works, but at what cost of additional complexity.
