User Tools

Site Tools


causes:hiding_behind_abstraction

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
causes:hiding_behind_abstraction [2017/10/31 11:57]
jakobadmin [Examples]
causes:hiding_behind_abstraction [2017/12/16 06:01] (current)
jakobadmin [Further Reading]
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== Hiding Behind Abstractions and Terminology ====== ====== Hiding Behind Abstractions and Terminology ======
  
-//See also: [[causes:​mind_projection_fallacy]]//​+<​blockquote>​Characteristically,​ modern physicists do not try to visualize the objects they discuss.<​cite>​from "Field Theory"​ by F. 
 + Dyson </cite><​/blockquote>​
  
 <​blockquote>​As mathematical formalisms become more and more beautiful, it is increasingly easy to be trapped by the formalism and to become a ‘slave’ to the formalism. We used to be ‘slaves’ to Newton’s laws when we regarded everything as a collection of particles. After the discovery of quantum theory,4 we become ‘slaves’ to quantum field theory. At the moment, we want to use quantum field theory to explain everything and our education does not encourage us to look beyond quantum field theory. However, to make revolutionary advances in physics, we cannot allow our imagination to be trapped by the formalism. We cannot allow the formalism to define the boundary of our imagination. The mathematical formalism is simply a tool or a language that allows us to describe and communicate our imagination. Sometimes, when you have a new idea or a new thought, you might find that you cannot say anything. Whatever you say is wrong because the proper mathematics or the proper language with which to describe the new idea or the new thought have yet to be invented. Indeed, really new physical ideas usually require a new mathematical formalism with which to describe them. This reminds me of a story about a tribe. The tribe only has four words for counting: one, two, three, and many-many. Imagine that a tribe member has an idea about two apples plus two apples and three apples plus three apples. He will have a hard time explaining his theory to other tribe members. This should be your feeling when you have a truly new idea. Although this book is entitled Quantum field theory of many-body systems, I hope that after reading the book the reader will see that quantum field theory is not everything. Nature’s richness is not bounded by quantum field theory <​blockquote>​As mathematical formalisms become more and more beautiful, it is increasingly easy to be trapped by the formalism and to become a ‘slave’ to the formalism. We used to be ‘slaves’ to Newton’s laws when we regarded everything as a collection of particles. After the discovery of quantum theory,4 we become ‘slaves’ to quantum field theory. At the moment, we want to use quantum field theory to explain everything and our education does not encourage us to look beyond quantum field theory. However, to make revolutionary advances in physics, we cannot allow our imagination to be trapped by the formalism. We cannot allow the formalism to define the boundary of our imagination. The mathematical formalism is simply a tool or a language that allows us to describe and communicate our imagination. Sometimes, when you have a new idea or a new thought, you might find that you cannot say anything. Whatever you say is wrong because the proper mathematics or the proper language with which to describe the new idea or the new thought have yet to be invented. Indeed, really new physical ideas usually require a new mathematical formalism with which to describe them. This reminds me of a story about a tribe. The tribe only has four words for counting: one, two, three, and many-many. Imagine that a tribe member has an idea about two apples plus two apples and three apples plus three apples. He will have a hard time explaining his theory to other tribe members. This should be your feeling when you have a truly new idea. Although this book is entitled Quantum field theory of many-body systems, I hope that after reading the book the reader will see that quantum field theory is not everything. Nature’s richness is not bounded by quantum field theory
Line 14: Line 15:
 <​cite>​Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell by A. Zee <​cite>​Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell by A. Zee
 </​cite></​blockquote>​ </​cite></​blockquote>​
 +
 +
 +<​blockquote>​It has been my experience, by the way, that such simple derivations are much more useful for scientific thinking than more formal ones; so it’s unfortunate that textbooks (and academic papers) are almost always dominated by the latter. ​ **I am always pleasantly surprised by how much easier it is to talk science one-on-one with someone than it is read their papers.** ​ That’s because in a one-on-one conversation a scientist will talk to you in the language that s/he uses to think about the problem, whereas when writing a paper everyone gets paranoid that they’ll say something incorrect and be called out for it.  But as my undergraduate advisor used to say, “what’s a factor of \pi between friends?​”<​cite>​[[https://​gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/​2013/​04/​24/​spare-me-the-math/​|Brian Skinner]]</​cite></​blockquote>​
 +
 +
 +<​blockquote>​On the other hand, a prominent blogger once offered the advice that it’s dangerous to blog without tenure. There is a caricatured image of grad students as working 200% of the time. While this is clearly not true in practice, it still doesn’t look great when you hit a ‘rough patch’ in your research but you still manages to make regular blog posts. Further, no matter how many insightful posts you write, you’re always a single bone-headed statement away from offending someone senior with a lot of power over your future. (So when the grown-ups are having blogo-wars with one another, Junior would be wise enough to stay out of it.) [I will note, however, that I’ve heard a few people say that blogging has *helped* their early careers.]
 +
 +I haven’t complete closed the door to future blogging. Maybe somewhere down the line I’d be interested in joining a group blog of young scientists, but this very-hypothetical situation wouldn’t happen in the near future and would only occur after a long talk with my adviser.
 +
 +<​cite>​[[https://​fliptomato.wordpress.com/​2008/​09/​13/​brief-thoughts-on-blogging/​|Flip Tanedo]]</​cite>​
 +</​blockquote>​
  
 ===== The Problem with Most Textbooks and Papers ===== ===== The Problem with Most Textbooks and Papers =====
Line 38: Line 50:
  
 <​blockquote>"​The similarity between sound and light requires explanation,​ for there is no obvious reason for their quantum mechanics to be the same. In the case of sound-quantization may be deduced from the underlying laws of quantum mechanics obeyed by the atoms. In the case of light it must be postulated. This logical loose end is enormously embarrassing,​ and is something we physicists prefer to disguise in formal language. Thus we say that light and sound obey the Planck law by virtue of canonical quantization and the bosonic nature of the underlying degrees of freedom.But this is no explanation at all, for the reasoning is circular. **Stripped of its complexity, “canonical quantization” simply boils down to requiring light to have properties modeled after those of sound.**"​ <​cite>​from a Different Universe, by R. Laughlin</​cite></​blockquote>​ <​blockquote>"​The similarity between sound and light requires explanation,​ for there is no obvious reason for their quantum mechanics to be the same. In the case of sound-quantization may be deduced from the underlying laws of quantum mechanics obeyed by the atoms. In the case of light it must be postulated. This logical loose end is enormously embarrassing,​ and is something we physicists prefer to disguise in formal language. Thus we say that light and sound obey the Planck law by virtue of canonical quantization and the bosonic nature of the underlying degrees of freedom.But this is no explanation at all, for the reasoning is circular. **Stripped of its complexity, “canonical quantization” simply boils down to requiring light to have properties modeled after those of sound.**"​ <​cite>​from a Different Universe, by R. Laughlin</​cite></​blockquote>​
- 
  
  
 ===== Further Reading ===== ===== Further Reading =====
  
 +  * [[http://​www.dan.sperber.fr/​wp-content/​uploads/​guru-effect.pdf|The Guru Effect]] by Dan Sperber: "​Obscurity of expression is considered a flaw. Not so, however, in the speech or writing of intellectual gurus. All too often, what readers do is judge profound what they have failed to grasp."​
   * [[http://​bayes.wustl.edu/​etj/​articles/​cmystery.pdf|Clearing up Mysteries — The Original Goal]] by E. T. Jaynes   * [[http://​bayes.wustl.edu/​etj/​articles/​cmystery.pdf|Clearing up Mysteries — The Original Goal]] by E. T. Jaynes
 +  * https://​academia.stackexchange.com/​questions/​72244/​why-dont-more-academics-write-textbooks
 +  * https://​mathoverflow.net/​questions/​38639/​thinking-and-explaining
causes/hiding_behind_abstraction.1509451027.txt.gz · Last modified: 2017/10/31 12:57 (external edit)