Another 'Jewish-American-born theoretical physicist named Steve' Passes On

 Scott Aaronson memorializes another passing physicist and explains a little quantum computing along the way:

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=5730

Waxing Eloquent on Weinberg...

 There have been, and will be, many tributes to Steven Weinberg this week; I highly recommend this very personal one from Scott Aaronson:

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=5566

Stephen Wolfram with Sean Carroll

 Haven't had a chance to view it myself yet, but Sean Carroll's latest guest on his Mindscape podcast is Stephen Wolfram, so ought be interesting (over to 2.5 hrs.):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bMYtEKjHs0

Thinking Outside the Box...

 A new round of always-fun lateral thinking puzzles from Futility Closet today:

https://www.futilitycloset.com/2020/12/28/podcast-episode-325-lateral-thinking-puzzles/

...and here's an hour-plus of science-writer John Horgan talking to science-writer Amanda Gefter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGb9SVZhCwc

One of Sean Carroll's Many Worlds...

Here’s physicist Sean Carroll with Joe Rogan for 90 minutes touting the ideas in his new book, “Something Deeply Hidden” (many interesting segments if you can find time for a listen):

JRE #1352 - Sean Carroll from JoeRogan on Vimeo.

…ohhh, and if you don’t know who Sean Carroll is, well then I’ve got you covered on that ;)

https://math-frolic.blogspot.com/2019/04/sean-carroll-raconteur-expositor.html

Lost In Math

Once again putting off a post I had scheduled (now have ~2+ months of posts scheduled!), this time to interject a quick blurb for Sabine Hossenfelder’s 2018 book, “Lost In Math.” Having just finished it, am very happy I included it on my year-end “best books” list for 2018, based on nothing more than the “buzz” around it at the time — too often I find popular physics books rather indecipherable (over-my-head), as well as too speculative and detached from scientific method (in my view) to enjoy, but Dr. Hossenfelder’s volume is very readable, and another refreshing contrarian or skeptical viewpoint. Very much liked the discussions/interviews with a wide range of well-known individuals in the physics community, and also especially enjoyed her final wrap-up chapter — in fact, I’d almost recommend reading the LAST chapter first since it really lays out what all the rest of the book is centrally about (the question of whether particle physics/cosmology is going astray).

Further, given all the talk these days (especially on blogs!) about the “beauty” of mathematics, her basic thesis that “beauty” in physics may not be all it is cracked up to be (may even be counter-productive) is a thought-provoking notion.

Quite awhile back I made a mental commitment not to buy many more popular physics books — they so often disappoint me. I got Sabine’s book from my local public library, but now having read it plan to purchase a copy to keep on hand!

The book includes several passages suitable for quotation. I'll end with a couple I passed along on Twitter:

"I can't believe what this once-venerable profession has become. Theoretical physicists used to explain what was observed. Now they try to explain why they can't explain what was not observed. And they're not even good at that." 

“Then there is the mother of all biases, the bias blind spot — the insistence that we certainly are not biased. It’s the reason my colleagues only laugh when I tell them biases are a problem, and why they dismiss my ‘social arguments’ believing they are not relevant to scientific discourse. But the existence of these biases has been confirmed in countless studies.”  

Here, by the way, is Peter Woit's longer review of the volume:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10314

------------------------------
...On a separate book side-note, I see John Brockman is out with a new essay compendium on artificial intelligence, "Possible Minds":
https://www.amazon.com/Possible-Minds-Twenty-Five-Ways-Looking/dp/0525557997

(...and on Wednesday I'll be back here with another re-play of a past favorite puzzle)

Sean Carroll Expounds...

Very nice, recent 1-hour summary of modern physics thought (at least one physicist's interpretation) from Sean Carroll (if you've not heard Sean cover this material before this is a great presentation):

Eric Weinstein on Math and Modern Physics Theory

10 interesting/skeptical minutes with Eric Weinstein on progress (or lack thereof) in modern physics:

Of Math and Physics

From Numberphile once again, this time on physics and math, for a general audience:

Chaos Versus the Multiverse

“Science predicts only the predictable….It is only the way we look at the universe that gives us the illusion of structure.”

Dr. Noson Yanofsky authored my favorite book of 2013, “The Outer Limits of Reason” (and in fact one of my favorite books of all time!), and now has a new provocative Nautilus article out weaving together more interesting topics, including number systems, the octonions, multiverse theory, and the way our perception acts as a sieve for the patterns we recognize and structure that may be an illusion. I recommend both physicists and mathematicians give it a whirl:

http://nautil.us/issue/49/the-absurd/chaos-makes-the-multiverse-unnecessary

Sir Roger Penrose Expounds

A blurb today about a new book I’m less than 100 pages into…

“Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the new physics of the Universe” is the latest from renowned Sir Roger Penrose. This is another beautifully produced, beautifully laid-out and diagrammed book from Princeton University Press. Given the breadth of these 400+ pages and Roger’s age I can’t help but wonder if this may be the last major work from him for a general audience. For all those reasons (and hey, simply because it IS from Roger Penrose) I’m sure it is worth recommending it to all readers interested in modern physics/cosmology. Peter Woit wrote a favorable review here (which I’ll point you to, since I won’t write a review):

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8759

I imagine the catchy main title (“Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy”) is especially intended to attract a wide general audience. Make no mistake about it though, it is heavy reading for anyone lacking acquaintance with theoretical physics, focused on the standard theory, inflation, quantum mechanics, string theory, and Penrose’s own twistor theory. There is a fair amount of math in the volume as well, and in fact, for math fans, the 70-page “Mathematical Appendix” may even be the best part of the book.

I won’t attempt a full review though because so much of the physics is simply beyond my grasp. Despite having read many popular cosmology books in the last two decades, the whole field is less, not more, comprehensible to me over time. I well understand the frustration (and rise) of the many skeptics of modern physics in recent years (Penrose himself is skeptical of many aspects). I don’t know of any other field where the more I’ve read, the fuzzier and less-comprehensible it all seems (not to mention being vociferously-debated-over by those who DO understand it!).

But with that said, I am looking forward to slowly slogging my way through this volume and gleaning from it what I can; there is possibly no better or more original expositor than Penrose to draw from. If modern physics theory is of interest to you you certainly won’t want to ignore this book either, and the more you already understand, the brighter read it will be.

I do have one curiosity about the book that maybe some knowledgeable reader can comment on in a few sentences:

I no more comprehend the specifics of the Langland’s Program in mathematics than the advanced cosmological theories in physics, but am still interested to hear about progress in cutting-edge Langlands work that hopes to unify mathematics (and in so doing may offer some unification to physics as well). Given that Penrose is a mathematical physicist I hoped there might be an update on Langlands somewhere in these 400+ pages, but it appears absent (not included in the Index to the volume). Am I wrong to think Langlands should tie in to some of this very theoretical discussion, or is there some reason one would NOT expect to see it in such a volume — is it too early on in Langlands work to be tying it back to "fashionable" ;-) physics, or perhaps the opposite problem, and it is simply too advanced for inclusion in a general audience volume? Just curious, if someone can enlighten me; I was looking forward to seeing Penrose's take on it all (or maybe it's just an area he has not much dabbled in?).

Anyway, here's how Woit ends his review of Sir Roger's volume:

"The range of non-crackpot speculative ideas about fundamental physics that normally get much attention is unfortunately quite narrow. In this environment Penrose is a breath of fresh air, providing here a different point of view on several topics, backed by serious and detailed argument. In some ways this is a popular book, but in others it is something else, deserving the attention of experts in the subject. I can’t recommend it too highly to anyone with a serious interest in fundamental questions about physics."

p.s.... Penrose will be at the Museum of Math in NY this coming Wed. evening promoting his book.

Linear and Angular Momentum...

Another fascinating video from Tadashi Tokieda and Numberphile:



All his wonderful videos are here:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLt5AfwLFPxWI9eDSJREzp1wvOJsjt23H_

A Physics Sidebar

Tangent to mathematics today (though there is mention of Gödel here)... just wanted to make sure everyone is aware of the wonderful interview with Janna Levin at Quanta Magazine. Astrophysicist Levin is promoting her latest book, "Black Hole Blues" and was involved in the LIGO project that recently detected gravitational waves, but really the background of her life and approach to physics are some of the most interesting aspects of her conversation with Natalie Wolchover:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160505-janna-levins-theory-of-doing-everything/

It turns out that Levin never got a high school diploma and suffered a series of serious medical events, before reaching college and her odd path to physics:

"I started college as a philosophy major, and I was interested in art history, the arts. But I grew to hate certain things in philosophy. I was really frustrated that people were trying to figure out what a long-dead man meant when he said something. Nobody is tearing their hair out saying, 'What did Einstein mean by relativity?' Once he shared it, he shared it. It was ours."

It's all a great reminder of the varied, unpredictable journeys people often take to reach their destinations! Dr. Levin, by the way, has written three other books, including a novel.

A couple years back Levin also spent a fascinating hour with Krista Tippett for her "On Being" radio broadcast:
http://www.onbeing.org/program/mathematics-purpose-and-truth/130


Lastly, as long as I'm mentioning physics, three more recent books I've seen a fair amount of positive popular buzz for (but haven't read myself) are:

"Seven Brief Lessons On Physics" by Carl Rovelli
"The Jazz of Physics" by Stephon Alexander
"The Universe In Your Hand" by Christophe Galfard

Pure Math and Quantum Mechanics

A recent article points to a link between quantum physics and a quite old derivation-formula for pi:
http://phys.org/news/2015-11-derivation-pi-links-quantum-physics.html

It's all above my pay-grade ;-), but I am wondering if this in any way relates back to previous interesting work (Freeman Dyson and Hugh Montgomery) finding linkage between quasi-crystals, prime numbers, the Riemann Zeta function, and sub-atomic structure (here and here)? No clear connection is made in the above article, but in both cases concepts from pure mathematics appear unexpectedly in a quantum mechanics context, so just wondering?
Anytime that pure Platonic-like math raises its head in an area as fundamental as atomic structure it gives one pause to ponder....

image via Cburnett/WikimediaCommons

From 6th Grade to Advanced Physics...

Just a couple of links that hint at the breadth of mathematics, to start the week with:

a)  Brian Hayes, who is not a 6th-grader ;-) is off-and-running with an analysis of an arithmetic problem Fawn Nguyen previously posed to her 6th graders (...both delightful and interesting):
http://bit-player.org/2015/mrs-nguyens-prestidigitation

b)  Despite David Hilbert famously chastising the detractors of Cantor's "infinity," that "no one shall drive us from the paradise which Cantor has created for us," physicist Max Tegmark argues for finding "the true laws of physics" by finally getting rid of infinity:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/02/20/infinity-ruining-physics/#.VOs2kcZDTLX

Quantum Physics and Pure Math Creeping Toward One Another

Seed Magazine has just re-run a fascinating 2006 piece from Marcus du Sautoy on a possible deep connection between the mystery of prime numbers and the quantum physics of atomic structure:

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/prime_numbers_get_hitched/

It relates back to one of my favorite 'Sunday reflections' here involving a famous encounter between Freeman Dyson and Hugh Montgomery.

Here is a more recent longish piece (2013) on the same subject from Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study that brings quasi-crystals into the discussion:
https://www.ias.edu/about/publications/ias-letter/articles/2013-spring/primes-random-matrices

And a whole lot more from this 2013 John Baez posting over at n-Category Cafe blog:
https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2013/06/quasicrystals_and_the_riemann.html
(again, technical stuff!)

Matthew Watkins' trilogy of books on prime numbers, for a more general audience, also relates to this discussion.

One gets the feeling there is something very fundamental going on here... verrrrry fundamental... but, can the human brain unravel it!?

Woit, Weinstein, Lisi... Oh My!

For the physics crowd....

Eric Weinstein via Wikipedia

When Peter Woit writes about mathematician/economist Eric Weinstein and surfer-physicist Garrett Lisi in the same post, well, I have to take note of it!:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5927

Weinstein is apparently giving a lecture at Oxford today (invited by Marcus du Sautoy) on some mathematical physics ideas (called "Geometric Unity") he has been working on for awhile (but not shared much about), which Woit analogizes to the outside-the-box thinking of surfer/physicist Garrett Lisi. Further, Peter writes:

"Both he [Weinstein] and Garrett are pursuing what seems to me one of the deepest questions around: what is the relationship between the SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) geometry of the Standard Model, and the 4d pseudo-Riemannian geometry of space-time and general relativity? Garrett was trying to understand this in terms of E(8) symmetry, and I’m looking forward to seeing what Eric’s ideas about this are."

A bit above my pay grade, but still interesting-sounding stuff! Maybe in a day or two we'll hear more about it.

Until then, you can also read this long Guardian piece on Weinstein's work, which Peter linked to as well:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2013/may/23/roll-over-einstein-meet-weinstein

Riemann, Dyson, Montgomery, Quasi-crystals, Matrix Theory...

....and, quantum physics.

Below a longish and deep read from the Institute For Advanced Study on the mysterious linkage between the Riemann zeta function and physics (a lot to chew on or just try to comprehend):

https://www.ias.edu/about/publications/ias-letter/articles/2013-spring/primes-random-matrices


Just a couple of passages from the long piece:

 “ 'The Riemann zeta function remains one of the mysteries of modern mathematics. It is a function that we understand a lot about except for the most important question,' says Peter Sarnak, Professor in the School of Mathematics. 'It connects the theory of prime numbers, or encodes deep information about the theory of prime numbers, with the zeros. It controls the prime numbers in a way that nothing else we know does. While understanding prime numbers is an important problem, it is the generalizations of the Riemann zeta function and the objects associated with these that make it more significant.' ”....

"Quasi-crystals were discovered in 1984 and exist in spaces of one, two, or three dimensions. Dyson suggests mathematicians obtain a complete enumeration and classification of all one-dimensional quasi-crystals, the most prevalent type, with the aim of identifying one with a spectrum that corresponds to the Riemann zeta function and one that corresponds to the L-functions that resemble the Riemann zeta function. If it can be proved that a one-dimensional quasi-crystal has properties that identify it with the zeros of the Riemann zeta function, then the Riemann Hypothesis will have been proved."

I haven't had occasion to read the 2nd and 3rd volumes of Matthew Watkin's trilogy on prime numbers, but I can't help but think that the above article may overlap with or relate to some of the notions reached by Watkins who also writes of the 'vibrational' nature of the number system.

Algebra, Geometry... and Quantum Mechanics

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/962

...and don't forget to read the 600+ comments either ;-)

Math Specialization et. al...

Cliff Pickover recently tweeted a link to this interesting older post (2009) by Doron Zeilberger; timely, with the current joint math meetings just ended in New Orleans (it deals with the degree to which math is now composed of highly-specialized areas, and what this means for large conferences):

http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/Opinion104.html

(Zeilberger urges more "generalists" in math "who can see the big picture;" of course, extreme specialization is a problem faced today by most of the sciences)

And a few months after the above posting, Zeilberger wrote a followup with suggestions for improving professional math meetings:

http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/Opinion106.html

(...I just wish he'd tell us how he REALLY feels. ;-))


Meanwhile, "polygeek" has been playing around with prime numbers and asks for comments to his recent  findings/patterns here:

http://polygeek.com/3327_flex_prime-patterns-2


Lastly, on a side-note, since most math-folks are also interested in physics, I'll pass along this person's top 10 list of popular physics books from 2010:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44623