Letters to the Editor
Silenced
Published Letters: 1358 Editor's Choice: 75
-
More about quantum mechanics
[Read the article: Our rosy future, according to Freeman Dyson]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For me, the important thing about quantum mechanics is the equations, the mathematics. If you want to understand quantum mechanics, just do the math. All the words that are spun around it don't mean very much. It's like playing the violin. If violinists were judged on how they spoke, it wouldn't make much sense.
But it's not just doing the math. All of our high technology right now rests on the fact that this math means something in the material world.
This math reaches materially potent conclusions about nature that we've been able to use to alter human life and culture on a grand scale.
The fact that this intensley materially potent math leads us inexorably to a deep philosophical confict between the knowability and objectifiability of the universe is not "just words."
The problem with Freeman is people have made a fetish out of math ability. Freeman is really good at math -- therefore everything he says must be genius and we need to pay attention to all of it.
But you see here in this interview -- math is all the man is made of. He's not a deep thinker. He doesn't even really believe in science.
But because he's good at math, and our culture makes a fetish out of men who are good at math, everything he spouts at random is treated as if it's some really deep thought.
I don't think it's "just words" that the materially potent math behind quantum mechanics forces us to choose between a world that is knowable but not objectifiable, or objectifable but not knowable.
Evelyn Fox Keller argued that physicists need to develop some radical new cognitive paradigm to reconcile the statistical formulation of quantum mechanics with the wave function formulation.
Freeman's cognitive paradigm is to stick his head under the covers and call it all "just words."
That is not the approach that is going to lead science forward.
-
In quantum mechanics, the universe is almost...human
[Read the article: Our rosy future, according to Freeman Dyson]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There's an inherent conflict between knowability and objectifiability when dealing with humans.
It's strangely reminiscent of the conflict between knowability and objectifiability that automatically pops out when one does the mathematics of quantum mechanics.
-
Of course he's respected for his actual accomplishments
[Read the article: Our rosy future, according to Freeman Dyson]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Grubert, you ask how respected Dyson is --- well Dyson was elected FRS by his peers, and on that basis it does seem that his fellow Physicists, not to mention a large number of scientists in other disciplines think he is an important figure and pretty first rate.
This is out of respect for the work that he's done within his specialty.
You don't become NAS or FRS because your peers agree with you on everything or even because they LIKE you.
Just because he almost brought particle physics to a screeching halt and a lot of physicists still hate him for that doesn't mean the physicists who still hate him for that are going to discount the importance of the Schwinger-Dyson equation.
The Schwinger-Dyson equation was an important piece of work and that remains true no matter what wrong and stupid-headed thing Freeman pulls out of his behind that has nothing at all to do with his mathematical speciality.
It was wrong and stupid-headed to argue that the future of particle physics did not lie in accelerator physics, just two years after the discovery of deep inelastic scattering, when we were just seeing signs of the existence of quarks inside the proton.
The Schwinger-Dyson equation still qualifies him for all his professional honors. But while they're honoring him, the people honoring him have a very vivid memory of just how wrong and destructive he can be.
-
It's kinda sad when you think about it
[Read the article: Our rosy future, according to Freeman Dyson]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When he says " For me, science has nothing much to do with deep thoughts," he's dismissing the deep significnace of his own work.
The people who honor him regard his work so highly because to them, the mathematical reconciliation between the two prevailing formalisms of relativistic quantum theory does constitute deep thought. The successful integration of special relativity with quantum mechanics does constitute deep thought and it provokes and guides and solves even deeper thoughts.
It's sad to me that he can't feel the depth of his own work.
This dismissal of the deep signifiance of his own work is consistent with his dismissal of the significance of the scientists who are telling us we're facing a world of disaster from global warming.
He doesn't take his own work seriously, so he projects that on everyone else, like they're just playing with toys and don't take any of it seriously either.
-
So larry333, you think it's acceptable to call hundreds of professional scientists corrupt frauds?
[Read the article: Our rosy future, according to Freeman Dyson]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So three big cheers for Freeman Dyson for reasserting the importance of theology, the inherent optimism of rationalism and the silliness of the climate change hysteria.
He's calling hundreds of professional scientists frauds when he says that climate change science is politically corrupted.
I challenge Freeman to call out these scientists by name and accuse each them of fraud by name, so that each and every one of them can take him to court and sue him for slander and defamation of character.
Be a man, Freeman. Don't be a coward.
If you think climate scientists are committing fraud for political reasons, then name the ones you're accusing of fraud and let's see if your accusations can survive in a court of law.
-
An accusation of scientific fraud will certainly make a case of slander
[Read the article: Our rosy future, according to Freeman Dyson]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you accuse a scientist of fraud, then that accusation threatens the ability of the scientist to make a living.
I think climate scientists should start calling Dyson out on his mass slander of their field.
Name names, Freeman, so the individuals you name will have a fair chance to defend their reputations as scientists from your accusations of fraud.
-
Here's a question I'd really like to ask him
[Read the article: Our rosy future, according to Freeman Dyson]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If science is not about deep thoughts, then why was the Schwinger-Dyson equation worth paying you to write?
Why have people been paying you, if nothing you've done has ever really meant anything deep?