Multivers: Mondes Possible de l’Astrophysique, de la Philosophie, et de l’Imaginaire

While I was in Paris recently I picked up several French books that aren’t readily available in the US. One of these is entitled Multivers: Mondes Possible de l’Astrophysique, de la Philosophie, et de l’Imaginaire, and it takes the form of a conversation between theoretical physicists Aurélien Barrau and Jean-Philippe Uzan, as well as historian of science fiction Patrick Gyger and philosopher Max Kistler. Astrophysicist Isabelle Joncour acts as moderator. The conversation is often dominated by the provocative philosophical flights of fancy of physicist Barrau, with philosopher Kistler playing the role of providing sobriety and down-to-earth arguments.

The contrast with the typical Multiverse Mania books of the Anglo-Saxon world is striking. French intellectuals are seriously educated in philosophy, and think it natural to carry on arguments invoking the ideas of a wide range of philosophers, even in contexts such that similar Americans wouldn’t see the point of raising philosophical issues. In this case, some of the discussion revolves around the ideas of American philosophers David Lewis and Nelson Goodman about “possible worlds”. It’s amusing to note that it would probably be extremely difficult to get together for a discussion a group of American physicists who had even heard of these two of their countrymen, much less be capable of seriously discussing their ideas. Maybe that’s just as well though, as professional philosopher Kistler makes a good case that the “possible worlds” at issue in this sort of philosophy don’t really have anything to do with the multiverse.

Barrau takes a position refreshingly agnostic about string theory and LQG, deploring the ideological warfare between them. Unlike most physicists though, who were interested in string theory when it might have predicted something and are now losing interest, he claims that the fact that it can’t predict things is what got him to really like string theory:

la theorie des cordes commence à m’intéresser à partir du moment où, précisément, elle prend ce tournant où l’on ne sait plus très bien où on va et où on change les règles du jeu au milieu de la partie. Ca devient très motivant!

string theory starts to interest me precisely from the moment where it takes this turn; one doesn’t much know where one is going and one changes the rules in the middle of the game. This starts to become appealing!

For Barrau, it’s just when string theory starts to turn into pseudo-science that it interests him. In brief, he agrees that the string theory multiverse moves the field from physics into metaphysics, but thinks that’s a good thing. He’s in love with the idea of finally being free from many of the conventional constraints physicists labor under as they try to do science and the possibility of taking up again the overlap of some French philosophy with science that Alan Sokal very successfully made a joke of. He starts out:

En philosophie francaise, je pense à Deleuze et à son rhizome, au “plus d’un” de Derrida, au(x) toucher(s) chez Nancy, au nominalisme de Foucault, a l’ontologie du multiple de Badiou…

and immediately realizes that the question of Sokal must be addressed if you’re going to go on like that:

Je crains que l’on soit encore dans une sorte de timidité généralisée qui est peut-être issue des contrecoups de la triste affaire Sokal. Il est tout à fait souhaitable d’enjoindre les gens a ne pas dire n’importe quoi. Cela ne se discute pas. Mais il serait dommage que cet excès de précaution leur interdise tout simplement de penser à partir des constructions scientifiques. La physique d’aujourdhui me semble fabuleusement propice à philosopher, il faut oser.

I fear that we’re still in a kind of generalized timidity that may have come about as a consequence of the sad Sokal business. It’s completely desirable to insist that people not say just anything, that’s not up for discussion. But it would be a shame if too much caution keeps them from thinking starting with scientific constructions. Contemporary physics seems to me fabulously propitious for philosophizing. One must be daring.

There’s much abuse directed towards Popper, falsifiability, and of crude attempts to separate science from non-science. Barrau is very happy with the idea of not having any way of distinguishing the two, while Kistler tries to remind him that, tricky as it may be, there’s an important distinction involved. What seems important to me here is maybe more of a sociological than philosophical point, and it’s a bit like the one that motivated Sokal. If you don’t have any standard at all for what is science and what isn’t, you lose control of the powerful role of science in how we see the world, and put yourself at the mercy of socially stronger forces who will be happy to take on this role and grab control and power away from those who have disarmed themselves. In the specific local area of fundamental physics, if there’s no way to recognize that ideas have failed, those with a vested interest in a set of failed ideas will never give up their control of the discourse. Instead of the philosophers listed by Barrau, someone like Michel Foucault might be more relevant…

Posted in Book Reviews, Multiverse Mania | 10 Comments

Back to the Usual

Since April 1 is over, choice of blog topics will revert to the usual, and at some point I’ll get around to reverting the logo. There are plenty of other blogs covering desserts, biking, and what’s wrong with Obama, so I think I better stick to my market niche.

In Langlands/String Theory/Media news, the last episode of The Big Bang Theory (The Zarnecki Incursion) starts off with a scene where the white-board in the background has a central object in Langlands theory. It’s the representation of the upper-half-plane modulo SL(2,Z) as an adelic double coset, with a picture of a tree for the prime p=2. Next week, my colleague Brian Greene will make a guest appearance. For more Big Bang coverage, see Lubos, who really does seem to think that he’s Sheldon.

Later today I’ll post the usual tedious new review of a book about the multiverse. But, first I need to get breakfast at Silver Moon, and the weather is great for a bike ride…

Posted in Uncategorized | 14 Comments

Dessert

Another important topic that this blog will cover is that of baked goods. While every street-corner in Paris has a wonderful bakery, they’re hard to find in the US. Luckily for me, there’s Silver Moon at 105rd St. and Broadway, which could be the best bakery in the city, and often is the place where I start my day. Another related fine source of sugary goodness is the Wafels and Dinges food truck that spends Monday near Columbia, providing a wide array of waffle possibilities.

Until recently, a sad fact about life in New York City was that you couldn’t get a religieuse. This situation has now been rectified, with La Bergamote at 20th St. and 9th Avenue an excellent source. On my last trip to Paris I was introduced to a French pastry treat I’d never had before, a Breton specialty called a Kouign Amann, which is available quite a few places there. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, such a thing is not for sale in New York. I hope that this shocking situation will be rectified soon, and will report on any progress.

Posted in Uncategorized | 22 Comments

Biking in New York

I’ve been biking in and around New York City for many years, recently doing several thousand miles a year, and this should provide many topics for the blog. Look forward to, for example, an explanation of how to best get across the Passaic River to Newark on bike. Biking in Manhattan has always been a challenge, but things have gotten exciting recently. A few years ago the city started painting lines on some of the streets, announcing that these were “bike lanes”. They’re generally filled with double-parked cars or trucks, and pedestrians hailing cabs or waiting for a break to run between the traffic. The width is carefully chosen to coincide with the width of a car door, so if you ride inside the lane you’re guaranteed to properly get “doored” by people leaving their parked cars. The act of painting the line has the added feature of making it illegal for bicyclists to ride outside of it, at a safe distance from the cars.

The latest news is that a few special, protected lanes have been created, with cars parked outside the lane. These lanes go for a few blocks, and are heavily favored by delivery people to store what they’re working with, tourists taking pictures of each other, parents changing their baby’s diapers, or basically any activity that pedestrians would complain about if it was done on the sidewalk. The new lanes have enraged some powerful New Yorkers, who are now on a “bikelash” campaign to get them removed. They’ve managed to enlist the police, who have a long history in Manhattan of fighting with bicyclists, and have started up a serious campaign of legal harassment.

I used to ride regularly in Central Park, which has a 6 mile long road winding through it, most of the time closed to traffic. A couple months ago the police started issuing $270 tickets to bicyclists for not stopping at any of the 50 or so traffic lights (it seems that when traffic is not allowed, bicyclists must obey the traffic lights anyway, runners or pedestrians no). This caused almost all bicyclists to stop riding in the park, but a few kept on anyway. The police then decided that the speed limit should be 15 mph for bicyclists, and set up a speed trap at the bottom of a hill early one morning, ticketing quite a few people. Later they changed their mind about this, and decided the law really was 25 mph. Teams of armed police were dispatched to appear at homes of the 15-25 mph ticketees in the evening and tell them a mistake was made, while continuing to make clear that if they didn’t stop at traffic lights when there was no traffic, they would still be ticketed. And if they were going faster than 25 mph at the bottom of a hill, there would be trouble. I’m sure they found this very reassuring. Personally, I’ve stopped riding in the park. It turns out though that there’s a platoon of undercover police throughout the city in unmarked cars waiting to start up sirens and go after any bicyclist who violates any rule in the hundreds of pages of regulations governing not just bicycles, but motor vehicles (their slogan: a bike is the same as a car!). Recently I ran afoul of one of these due to rolling very safely and slowly through an intersection, which got me not one, but two $270 tickets. I’ll appear in court on these charges some day soon, and I’m sure my readers will want to hear all the details of how this works out.

Update: A commenter correctly points out that I got the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers confused, it’s the Hackensack that is difficult to cross by bike down around Newark.

Posted in Uncategorized | 15 Comments

New York, New York

Another topic I hope to write about extensively is that of New York City, including discussing the wide range of cultural events going on, as well as the amazing restaurants. On the subject of food, I should give a plug for my friend Nathan Myhrvold’s new book Modernist Cuisine. It’s been getting rave reviews, and the first printing has sold out. I’ve been promised a copy from the second printing, and Nathan tells me that, “while it’s not a coffee-table book, you could use it as a coffee table…” I’ll report once the book arrives.

I’ve been in and out of New York City since the earliest times I can remember, which were in a suburb 25 miles north. My mother was born here and my father came here by himself as a 17-year old after the war. The place has changed quite a bit over the years, and some of the changes of the past few years are quite remarkable. These days, most of Manhattan is filled with new or renovated architecture, everything fixed up to a high level of gloss, and virtually crime-free. With one bedroom apartments going for a million dollars in many neighborhoods, if you trip on your shoelace you’re likely to take down a couple millionaires. These people are not going to mug you, and any outsiders who might think of this are deterred by the intense police presence, especially since 9/11. The only exception is bicycle theft, which is rampant, and doesn’t much interest the police. Last summer I came out of a store on Broadway mid Sunday afternoon to find a group of guys with bolt cutters freeing my bicycle from its chains. No one seemed to find their activities unusual or worth doing anything about.

Back in the 1980s there was a lot of talk of “gentrification”, as poor people were displaced by well-educated young middle-class people. These days a new word is needed to describe what is going on, perhaps “plutocracification”. Someone who lives in Tribeca described to me how 20 years ago the neighborhood changed as lawyers and doctors moved in, and artists moved out. Nowadays, the lawyers and doctors are getting pushed out as the hedge-funders and investment bankers arrive. It’s hard to overstate the effect of the financial industry in Manhattan, where supposedly it provides half the personal income, with much of the rest of the economy based on catering to this new wealth. Bank branches are everywhere, often taking up four corners of an intersection, with long swathes of expensive commercial street frontage devoted to cubicles for not very well-paid bank employees, most of which are normally empty.

In late 2008, there was a blip there for a moment, and I even saw one bank branch get closed. That didn’t last long though: apartments are selling again at high prices, new bank branches are opening, and you can’t get a reservation at a long list of popular expensive restaurants. Midtown streets are impassible, filled with fleets of massive black SUVs, their bullet-proof windows tinted dark. Used to be that the rich favored limos, but no longer. No one knows how long this will last, but the city is partying like it’s 2011. Huge cuts to the budgets for schools and the city university system have just been announced, but most Manhattanites are unconcerned, since they would never have their children educated in public institutions.

One side effect of having a lot of rich people from many different countries is that the restaurants in Manhattan tend to be spectacularly good. Some are trendy and rather expensive, but for not a ridiculous amount of money you can get a fantastic meal, and you have to go out of your way to find a bad one. I’ll be writing extensively about some of my culinary obsessions, one of which is barbecue. At this point I might argue that New York has better barbecue than just about anywhere else in the world. Just down the street from here (108th and Broadway), Rack and Soul has some of the best ribs I’ve ever eaten. On 26th St., Hill Country has taken the best sausage and brisket available in Texas (Kreutz’s in Lockhart), stolen it and brought it here to the city. Over in Williamsburg, you can get great barbecue with the best pork and beans I’ve ever seen at Fette Sau. The list goes on and on….

Recently opened near here just off 125th St. is Marcus Samuelson’s Red Rooster Harlem, where I recently had a wonderful lunch. Getting a dinner reservation is not easy, and some days the restaurant is packed with the power elite. Last week Obama took over the place for a $31,000/head dinner with his friends from the hedge funds. Here’s the menu. This is a typical story of the new New York. In what used to be pretty much a slum, now there’s a beautiful restaurant with some of the world’s best food. The wealthy may sometimes monopolize it, but if you’re a New Yorker and play your cards right, you too can participate in the fun and get a fantastic meal in a gorgeous place, at a not unreasonable price.

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Obama Worse Than Bush

I voted for Obama in the Democratic primary, because I figured Hillary Clinton was more likely to expand the war in Afghanistan and otherwise engage in the sort of misguided military adventure favored by the shrub. Look what happened. He appointed Clinton Secretary of State, and then sent even more troops into Afghanistan than Bush Jr. would have dared consider. Don’t even get me started about his Mideast policy and spineless cave-in on Israeli settlements. Remember Guantanamo? He’s commander-in-chief, could shut this illegal abomination down whenever he wants to, instead he intends to keep it open indefinitely. Again, W would have closed the place by now and moved on. The fact that Obama was given a Nobel Peace Prize is some sort of sick joke.

On the domestic front, let’s face it: Obama has been a disaster for the country, moving it farther to the right than it has been at any time since perhaps a period of a few years sometime back in the 19th century. He has pursued policies more or less in line with those of Bush, confusing and neutering moderates and progressives (who don’t dare criticize him). Based on his inspiring speeches, they thought they had elected a community organizer, but are slowly realizing that they’ve been had, with the White House now in the hands of a Bush clone interested not in fighting powerful interests but in playing golf with them. By doing this, he has pushed the Republican opposition so far to the right that they’ve descended into lunacy, and ensured that he’ll should have no trouble winning re-election in 2012. The only threat to him is that of the rise of a populist/fascist movement, motivated by blind hatred and the (accurate) feeling that they are being driven into poverty by a ruthless Ivy-league-educated establishment with a lock on the political and financial system of the country. At the Harvard Club in midtown there’s a huge new portrait of him set in a prominent place as you enter the building. The establishment lawyers and financial types who congregate there know that he’s their man.

The military budget is now significantly higher than during the Bush years, and taxes on the wealthy even lower (taxes on large estates are lower than under Bush). While Bush expanded Medicare significantly to cover prescription drugs, Obama’s health plan was written in partnership with those responsible for the problem (high costs): doctors, insurance and pharmaceutical companies. The great innovation seems to be to expand access to medical care by forcing people who can’t afford it to buy insurance from rapacious insurance companies. Obama’s choice for Fed Chairman: same guy as the one Bush had running his Council of Economic Advisers, before moving on to the Fed and presiding over the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. If there’s any difference between Obama’s treasury secretary (Geithner) and Bush’s (Paulson), I’m unable to see it and haven’t met anyone who can. Geithner is now in charge of gutting the few minor reforms that were passed in the aftermath of the crisis, while institutionalizing a system of government backing for too-big-to-fail financial firms of sizes expanded since the Bush years. The organized looting of these firms by their employees that brought on the mess of 2008 is now back in full-swing.

Next year’s presidential campaign is predicted to cost a billion dollars, which Obama has already started raising from the financial industry and other interest groups. He faces no progressive or moderate opposition at all, with the only question to be resolved that of exactly how extreme his Republican opponent will be. I’ll be covering all this here on the blog, but on days when I don’t get around to giving you my thoughts on what is happening, two other places you might want to consult are FireDogLake and Naked Capitalism

Posted in Uncategorized | 59 Comments

Change of Direction

It probably won’t surprise my regular readers to hear that recently I’ve been getting rather tired of the usual topics of this blog. String theory has been intellectually dead for a very long time now, and continuing to point this out is becoming more and more tedious. About the multiverse, surely no one takes that seriously anymore, so, the less said, the better. Recently, John Baez decided to move away from abstract mathematical physics to write about topics of more relevance to the real world, see his blog Azimuth. Like him, I think it’s time to move on to subjects of wider interest. In the past I’ve very much restricted the topics I write about on this blog, but now have decided that I should share my views on a wide array of topics not just with my friends and colleagues, but with the wider world. This blog will be one way of doing this, but in the next days and weeks I’ll also be entering the world of Web 2.0 in a big way. There’s now a twitter feed, with much more to come.

As part of this new order, I intend to stop my previous somewhat fascist policy of deleting a large fraction of comments on various ill-defined grounds. I now encourage interaction with my readers, feel free to write about whatever’s on your mind!

Posted in Uncategorized | 22 Comments

Things That Deserve (but won’t get) Longer Blog Postings

Here’s a selection of news that deserves longer blog postings that, for one reason or another, I’m unable or unwilling to provide…

  • This year’s Abel Prize goes to John Milnor. With an excellent blog posting about this from Fields Medalist Tim Gowers, why should I try and compete?
  • I’ve been waiting for the US budget situation to clarify before writing about its implications for physics and math research, but it looks like that isn’t going to happen anytime soon. The US Congress is now engaged in a bizarre and irresponsible exercise of trying to run the country by each week fighting over not next year’s budget, not next quarter’s, not next month’s, but next week’s. At the moment there’s a budget for the next week and a half, but no one seems to know what will happen after this. The president has issued a proposed FY2012 budget, but there’s no reason to believe it will have anything to do with whatever the reality of funding later this year turns out to be. Trying to make plans and run a large laboratory like Fermilab under these conditions must be a nightmare. Last week there was a HEPAP meeting in Washington, with presentations that explain the current situation. A good excuse for not writing more about the future implications of federal funding decisions is that no one is actually making such decisions.
  • Last week Langlands supposedly gave a talk at the IAS, On Functoriality; on the Correspondence; and on Their Relation, Part I (I’m not sure if or when there will be a Part II). I wasn’t able to attend, but perhaps video will someday be available. Langlands provides a link to a document of “work in progress” entitled Functoriality and Reciprocity. In it, he gives his reflections on the current state of attempts to precisely formulate and understand the conjectures generally referred to as “Langlands functoriality” and the “Langlands Correspondence” (or “Langlands reciprocity”). These conjectures come in versions for algebraic number fields, function fields, and so-called “geometric Langlands” over the complex numbers, in each case in local and global versions.

    Much of the document consists of Langland’s description of his struggle to understand some issues in the geometric Langlands story, including the work of Witten and collaborators relating this to 4 and 6d quantum field theories. Another topic is that of the Abelian theory, and attempts to understand it locally. A very good reason to not write more about this is that I don’t understand it very well, although, paradoxically, I find Langlands writing about what confuses him rather easier to follow than when he writes about what he has completely understood. Another good reason is that I’m busily learning more about some of this, and maybe someday I’ll be less confused and able to write something more sensible here.

  • Also from the IAS, there’s video of a talk by Arkani-Hamed to the mathematicians available here, about work on scattering amplitudes. I’m curious to know what they made of it.
  • Also on the Langlands front, again in a category of things I don’t understand well enough to write more about, see this new Seminaire Bourbaki report on the Fundamental Lemma from Thomas Hales.
  • Update: There’s a Newsday story about Milnor here, unfortunately only the first bit is free. He explains what he is going to do with the million bucks: buy more leg-room on airplane flights (he’s 6’3″).

    Posted in Experimental HEP News, Langlands, Uncategorized | 9 Comments

    This Week’s Hype II

    LHC-related hype is coming fast and furious this week during my vacation, with Vanderbilt University yesterday issuing a press release headlined Large Hadron Collider could be world’s first time machine. It’s based on this paper, and the Vanderbilt press release explains:

    Weiler and Ho’s theory is based on M-theory, a “theory of everything.”

    The press release has been picked up by lots of other media outlets, including CBS News and UPI.

    It’s rather impressive that these tests of M-theory at the LHC will not only provide evidence for other universes, but allow time travel in this one.

    Posted in This Week's Hype | 49 Comments

    This Week’s Hype

    The LHC is back in business, producing stable colliding beams for the first time this year, although still with a small number of bunches and thus a low luminosity. The number of bunches and luminosity will increase over the next couple weeks.

    Reuters explains the significance of this, based on quotes from CERN scientists: they expect to find evidence of the multiverse as predicted in Stephen Hawking and Brian Greene’s books.

    Oliver Buchmueller, a leading physicist on the $10 billion project, said top priority in 2011 and 2012 would be finding evidence of super-symmetry, extra dimensions, dark matter, black hole production and the elusive Higgs boson.

    These concepts and ideas are at the new frontiers of science research as it pushes into the realms of what was once science fiction, giving a new impulse to cosmology and theorizing on whether the known universe is alone, or one of many.

    Cosmologists, like Briton Steven Hawking and U.S. physicist and mathematician Brian Greene, are looking to the LHC to turn up at least strong signs that there was another universe before the Big Bang or that others exist in parallel to our own

    There’s no word on exactly how LHC data is going to provide evidence for the multiverse, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

    Posted in Experimental HEP News, This Week's Hype | 22 Comments