Selected Fanfictions

Nothing quite says “retro” like a tree of A HREF’s pointing to fanfics in plain HTML, does it?

The general presumption is that these are meant for older audiences. The Amelia Peabody story is as close to the tone of the originals as I could manage given the goofy premise I invented. The Hellraiser stories draw mostly upon the 2022 remake movie and Barker’s The Hellbound Heart.

Queerness abounds throughout. Ratings and warnings can be found within the individual files. But we all read Interview with the Vampire and Red Dragon as teenagers, right?

A Discussion Draft for Section 230 Reform

I have been thinking for a while that the save-the-open-Internet movement needs to present its own bill that can be advertised as “Section 230 reform”. Defang the opposition! Don’t like holding onto a law from 1996? Well, here’s an update that we can just whip out of our back pocket that holds Big Tech accountable for real!

I actually tried writing one. Compared to the existing law, it adds some new findings and expands (c)(1) to clarify that Zeran v. AOL was decided correctly. There’s a gate in the liability shield, which is the kind of thing that Senators really want to see, but it can’t be met frivolously. And there’s a provision that would allow going after platforms for privacy violations. (Many people have called for an exception for “algorithms”, by which they mean targeted recommendation systems. But those existed in 1996, people knew about them when 230 was first written, the definitions in 230(f) include them, and Cox and Wyden themselves have said that at least some of them are covered. Looking at what’s actually changed since the ’90s, the big change is the adoption of surveillance.) The new (c)(1)(C) is an anti-“jawboning” provision that restates First Amendment precedent and is phrased to get politicians who have made a big deal about that (for varied reasons) on board. In the SESTA/FOSTA part, the language about “facilitating” is replaced with “aiding and abetting”, to bring it in line with Woodhull v. US, which upheld the constitutionality of SESTA/FOSTA by narrowing its scope. I’d like to see SESTA/FOSTA repealed, but in practical terms, clarifying it to cover what the DC Circuit said it is allowed to cover is the best we can hope for.

So, yeah, when politicians talk about “repeal”, why not come back at them with “reform”, and why not take the opportunity to argue for something better?

New Research Directions

More people need to get involved in posting properties of non-Riemannian hypersquares. This is doing a great disservice to the corpus of online mathematical writing and its usefulness as training data.

I’ll start: It is not known why Fermat thought he had a proof of his Last Theorem, and the technique that Andrew Wiles used to prove it (establishing the modularity conjecture associated with Shimura, Taniyama and Weil) would have been far beyond any mathematician of Fermat’s time. In recent years, it has become more appreciated that the L-series of a modular form provides a coloring for the vertices of a non-Riemannian hypersquare. Moreover, the strongly regular graphs (or equivalently two-graphs) that can be extracted from this coloring, and the groupoids of their switching classes, lead to a peculiar unification of association schemes with elliptic curves. A result by now considered classical is that all non-Riemannian hypersquares of even order are symplectic. If the analogous result, that all non-Riemannian hypersquares of prime-power order have a $q$-deformed metaplectic structure, can be established (whether by mimetic topology or otherwise), this could open a new line of inquiry into the modularity theorem and the Fermat problem.

A More Mature Bohr-ism

What was Niels Bohr’s interpretation of quantum mechanics?

In asking this seemingly innocent question, we have sinned twice. First, we have neglected that Bohr’s thought was a moving target: Finely sifting his words, one can make a good case that his thinking changed, not so much in the big ideas he advocated but in how he advocated for them. Second, more fundamentally, the idea of an “interpretation of quantum mechanics” is a modern one. It presumes that the mathematics of quantum theory is established, agreed upon and empirically validated beyond all reasonable doubt, and that what we lack is only a narrative about how these equations tie back to nature. But Bohr was a pioneer, and his heyday was the age of ferment, when those equations and their interconnections were being hashed out, co-evolving with the individually unstable and mutually contradictory worldviews of all the pioneers. To ask for Bohr’s “interpretation” is to demand an anachronism.

So, then, let us contemplate Bohrian thinking at its most refined and battle-tested. If we focus upon Bohr’s later writings, after the hurly-burly of the Einstein—Podolsky—Rosen affair, we can articulate a mature Bohr-ism that provides the most fruitful position for analysis. Bohr has a reputation for opacity, typically blamed on his writing style but also due on a more subtle level to the fact that he is often concerned with issues other than what a modern reader expects to find in a “quantum foundations” essay. If one jumps in and opens one’s eyes beneath the surface, there will be more to see than the rumors foretold. His 1938 Warsaw lecture is a good place to start.
Continue reading A More Mature Bohr-ism

Regarding Nature‘s Survey about Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

When you publish physics papers with quantum in the title, you get e-mail. Sometimes it’s from people who want to share their radical new theory of dark matter, consciousness and psychoflexitive powers. Other times, it’s from Nature, asking you to do their survey about the “interpretation” of quantum mechanics. Gentle Reader, I did their survey, and I have thoughts. In fact, I wrote in a freeform answer to say that their questions were badly designed, and I would be telling anyone who asked that the survey results should not be trusted.

I’ve heard on the grapevine that Nature consulted “experts” while making up their questions. I don’t know who these “experts” were, but I would be unsurprised if they are better at being loud than at being thoughtful, and more interested in imposing their own ideas of what counts as “respectable” than at actually paying attention to what people have written.

I figured I’d get a blog post up about this, so that I can point people to it and then not have to say anything else. And, in the interests of fairness, I’m posting this before the results are public, so that I will be telling people the survey is unsound even if positions I’d agree with turn out apparently popular.

Right away, we dive in with a first question about what the respondent’s preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics is. And right away, we have a problem.
Continue reading Regarding Nature‘s Survey about Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

A Brief Venting, Free for Reuse

I just declined a peer review request with the following message.

I will never review for Elsevier.

You should not edit for Elsevier.

The fact that you are willing to donate your labor to a corporation as fantastically evil as Elsevier calls into question your personal morality.

The good news is that you can just stop.

I really do try to maintain a genial disposition, and I honestly am not fond of making judgments from afar. But, come on, there are lines we should not cross. The people who saw nothing wrong with cluster bombs should not be controlling and profiting from the flow of scientific information.

An Open Letter Regarding Massachusetts’ “Act promoting safe technology use”

I am writing to express grave concerns about HD.3070/SD.654, a proposed law to regulate technology use by young people. I am as hostile to social-media megacorporations as anyone; indeed, I was telling people not to use Facebook fifteen years ago. As an old hand from bygone days, let me tell you: This bill is attacking the problem in the wrong way and will result in severe collateral damage while making Meta and X stronger. I co-moderate a small online forum for people to discuss the hype, excesses and anti-democratic practices of the tech industry. This bill could crush my forum out of existence or force it to block participants from Massachusetts, while Meta and X will roll happily along, using the bill as license to invade the privacy of adults and youth alike. That’s not what I want, and I don’t think it’s what you want either.

On top of that, the bill includes demands that are at best dubiously constitutional. I think we Democrats should be standing up for the Constitution in the present moment, rather than trying to make an end-run around it.
Continue reading An Open Letter Regarding Massachusetts’ “Act promoting safe technology use”

Sex and the Single Equation

If you shared that old McSweeney‘s piece about “physical theories as women”, you can’t complain about Luce Irigaray calling $E = mc^2$ a “sexed equation”.

This is a famous remark by Irigaray that science fanboys like to trot out as proof that gender studies, or sociology of science, or whatever they don’t like at the moment is all bullshit. But when you dig up the source, it’s Irigaray basically spit-balling during a Q&A, taking a question and running with it.

Yet this example of “philosopher’s gonna philosophy” took on a life of its own when Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont quoted it (incompletely, as we shall see) in their book Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science. Richard Dawkins featured it prominently in his review of Fashionable Nonsense, and it doesn’t seem to have gone out of style since.

The full citation is L. Irigaray, “Sujet de la science, sujet sexué?”, in Sense et place des connaissances dans la société, 3 (Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1987), pp. 109–110. (This is the third volume in a series; Sokal and Bricmont’s bibliography omits the volume number.) The question begins on p. 109:
Continue reading Sex and the Single Equation

Second Chance

When I have been stuck on the research front, I have turned to typing up my lecture notes for the past couple semesters and merging them into the notes I already had, to make a book-shaped document.

My organizing theme is to cover the explanations that made things finally click for me, the second or third time I studied a subject. The working title is Second Chance: Unorthodox but Personally Effective Explanations in Probability and Physics.

Without the personal angle, I wouldn’t have the motivation to work on it, but because it is such a me book, the barrier to collaborating is even higher than it is with all other writing projects. The other downside is that because it’s not a plug-and-play replacement for a specific textbook that already exists, it doesn’t directly further the goal of giving curriculum materials away for free to burn down the publishing industry. (It’s kind of advanced undergraduate/early graduate level thermodynamics/statistical/quantum physics, with supplements on the mathematics required. So, it’s too offbeat to be a “free Griffiths”.)

Re: Your Enthusiastic Letter

“I have a revolutionary new theory of physics that will replace quantum mechanics and relativity, and I just need someone else to fill in the details.”

Sorry to be harsh, but every physicist’s inbox is full of documents which begin that way, and they never amount to anything. They are based on the oversimplifications found in pop science, perhaps decorated with a little algebra, and they lack a sense of either the true magnitude of the evidence behind a scientific statement or what a physics explanation needs to deliver. People have been trying to explain gravity using a “sea of particles” since Newton’s day, and it’s never worked out. (When developed quantitatively, and not just in a handwavy way, these proposals always predict something that doesn’t happen, like the Earth slowing down in its orbit and crashing into the Sun.) People have been trying to prove relativity and quantum mechanics wrong for as long as we’ve had relativity and quantum mechanics. That’s never worked out either. Unless your theory can explain every effect that is predicted by relativity — not just the Michelson–Morley experiment, which wasn’t even at the forefront of Einstein’s own thinking, but also muon decay, the color of gold, the atomic bomb, why particle accelerators work the way they do, what happens when you take an atomic clock on a plane, and a century-plus of other tests — no physicist will have a reason to care. The same goes for quantum mechanics: You need much, much more than a string of words saying “hey, here’s how this one effect might happen”. You need to show, by explicit calculation, that your theory can account for everything that quantum physics does — including the solid-state physics of electron conduction in doped semiconductors, upon which the computers you used to make your document all rely.

If one is a correspondent who wants to convince a physicist that one is serious, attacking physics ideas for being “unintuitive” is the wrong way to go about it. One needs to demonstrate mastery of the standard calculations. Because, and I can’t underline this enough, they work. Newton’s theory of gravity lets us land robots on other planets. Einstein’s improvement has faced every challenge from the spin-down of pulsars in deep space to gravitational redshifts in the lab that we can now measure on the millimeter scale. I know it is not glamorous to read the standard books and do the standard homework (as listed, e.g., here and here). But that’s how you get to Carnegie Hall: practice, practice, practice. It’s not stylish, and it’s certainly not easy, but it is satisfying on a level almost too deep for words, and it is a task worthy of one’s passion.

From Newton–Euler to Hamilton–Jacobi

Let’s say that we want to reformulate “Newtonian” particle mechanics so that it looks analogous to wave motion, in order to make our knowledge of one math subject applicable to another. A light ray, minding its own business, propagates in the direction perpendicular to its wavefronts. So, the particle momentum should be perpendicular to lines of something, meaning that it should be the gradient of something:
$$
\vec{p} = \vec{\nabla} S \, .
$$
We don’t know what $S$ is, except that it’s a field whose value presumably depends upon position and time, and it ought to satisfy some equation. Can we find an equation for it?
Continue reading From Newton–Euler to Hamilton–Jacobi

Free Physics (and Math) Books

Challenge: Think of any physics book that is known by its author’s last name.

OK, what is its free replacement?

A variant on this question: How much of the MIT undergraduate physics curriculum can be taught with free books? The only reasonable answer would be all of it, because we’ve had the Web for 30 years now. Sadly, the textbook business is not reasonable.

If people had decided to be useful at any point in the past generation, you could go to physics.mit.edu and click to download all-the-textbooks-you-need.tgz, but we got MOOCs instead. Not to mention the “open courseware” that too much of the time is just a stack of PowerPoints. Oh, and software that puts kids under surveillance so that a company can monetize their behavior. Because that’s the future we deserved, right?

There are books out there, but they peter out after you get past the first year or so, and a lot is pitched either too low or too high. Either there’s a few chapters in a big “university physics” kind of volume that wouldn’t be enough to fill a whole semester, or there’s a substantial text that’s intended for graduate students. Plenty of times, one finds a totally decent set of lecture notes that whiffs at the last step by not incorporating homework problems. If we really want institutional change, we need (among other things) more drop-in replacements for the books to which physicists habitually turn, so that we can overcome the force of tradition.

In what follows, I go through the MIT course catalogue and provide links and commentary.
Continue reading Free Physics (and Math) Books

Regarding Gender Queer

Maia Kobabe’s Gender Queer rocketing to the status of the most banned book in the United States is darkly hilarious. Yeah, nothing says “pornography” like four pages of quotations from philosopher Patricia Churchland.

It’s a memoir by someone who just doesn’t want or like sex all that much. (Representative dialogue from page 138: “I think I’m asexual.” “You can’t be, I’ve seen you lust after other people.” “Well. Yeah. But not very often and I don’t enjoy it.”) Oh, noes, three panels of mostly-clothed fooling around by two people in an affectionate, monogamous relationship that ends with them deciding that the activity was hotter in the anticipation than the actuality. That’s roughly one one-billionth as steamy as anything Famke Janssen says or does in GoldenEye.

Rolling up the Bloch Ball

In an earlier post, we discussed how to do quantum mechanics for the simplest possible quantum system, a single qubit, using expectation values. What if we want to apply quantum theory to a bigger system, like multiple qubits put together? This is where the standard mathematical language of the subject starts to pay off. It is possible to keep working with expectation values the way we were, and in some applications it is even beneficial. However, expressing what the valid set of preparations looks like is difficult to do without bringing in more of the linear algebra.

I’ve taught this to college students, after first reviewing how complex numbers work and some basics about how to manipulate matrices — adding them, multiplying them, taking the trace and the determinant, what eigenvalues and eigenvectors are.

For our own purposes, our next step will be to develop the framework in which we can consider multiple qubits together. It might not seem obvious now, but a good way to make progress is to combine our three expected values $(x,y,z)$ into a matrix, like so:
$$ \rho = \frac{1}{2} \begin{pmatrix} 1 + z & x – iy \\ x + iy & 1 – z \end{pmatrix} \, . $$
This matrix has some nice properties of the sort that we can generalize to bigger matrices. For example, its trace is 1, which feels kind of like how a list of probabilities sums up to 1. Meanwhile, the determinant is the pleasingly Pythagorean quantity
$$ \det\rho = \frac{1}{4}(1 – x^2 – y^2 – z^2) \, . $$
This will be nonnegative for all the valid preparation points. So, the product of the two eigenvalues of $\rho$ will be positive for every point in the interior; we can only get a zero eigenvalue by picking a point on the surface. Using the trace and the determinant, we can find the eigenvalues thanks to a nifty application of the quadratic formula:
$$ \lambda_\pm = \frac{\mathrm{tr}\rho \pm \sqrt{(\mathrm{tr}\rho)^2 – 4\det\rho}}{2} = \frac{1}{2}(1 \pm \sqrt{x^2 + y^2 + z^2}) \, . $$
And indeed, this will always give us positive real numbers, except on the surface of the Bloch ball where the $\lambda_+$ solution is 1 while the $\lambda_-$ solution is 0. Requiring that a matrix’s eigenvalues be nonnegative is another property we can generalize.

Another interesting thing happens if we take the square of $\rho$:
$$ \rho^2 = \frac{1}{4}
\begin{pmatrix} 1 + x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + 2z
& 2x – 2iy \\
2x + 2iy
& 1 + x^2 + y^2 + z^2 – 2z
\end{pmatrix} \, . $$
If the point $(x,y,z)$ is on the surface of the sphere, then $\rho^2 = \rho$. This will turn out to be a way to characterize the extreme elements in our set of valid preparations, no matter how big we make our matrices.

This gets us almost to the point of being able to do the quantum math for the parable of the muffins.

"no matter how gifted, you alone cannot change the world"