Re: Re : What before big bang?

From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk (arkREMOVETHIS_at_ANDTHIScassiopaea.org)
Date: 09/12/04 

Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 19:54:15 +0200

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 18:10:58 +0200, YBM <ybmess@nooos.fr> wrote:

>
>Arkadiusz Jadczyk a écrit :
>> "If all good people were clever,
>> And all clever people were good,
>
>Igor and Grichka Bogdanov are neither clever
>
> http://ybmessager.free.fr/docs/potpourri.html
>
>nor good :
>
> http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/string/archives/000377.html
> http://ybmessager.free.fr/wp/index.php?p=9

You see, it is not about Igor and Grichka. It is about the way science
and knowledge progresses.

There are different schools here. It is like in art. In art there is a
school of realists, and there is a school of impressionists, and there
is a school of surrealists, and there is school of pointilism etc. etc.
They approach the subject differently, they have different philosophies,
they have different functions, they complement one another.

Read this:

" It's reported, although probably via apocrypha, that Michelangelo was
advised by his contemporaries not to use stone as a medium. It was not
befitting an artist who should, of course, have been using marble. Three
centuries later the Impressionists were reprimanded for using paint from
tubes because, as everyone knew, artist grind their own pigments in
order to create a personal palette. By the early years of our own
century we find the Constructivists being criticized for using modern
industrial materials like plastic and steel and reminded that real
artists used stone. Duchamp and Schwitters were just two Dadaists who
were scathingly attacked for their use of found materials instead of
paint out of tubes like the more commendable of their colleagues.

The lessons of history seems plain: the art mainstream is hideously
reactionary and beware any creative soul who experiments beyond the
boundaries they prescribe.

For the past 25 year computers have been the forbidden medium. It was OK
for established artists like Warhol and Hockney to use them but for a
young unknown it was the kiss of death."

http://www.paul-brown.com/WORDS/EMERGPAR.HTM

Do you think it is much different in science?

"The lessons of history seems plain: the art mainstream is hideously
reactionary and beware any creative soul who experiments beyond the
boundaries they prescribe."

Let me stress the term "creative". Creativity is the main concept here.
Igor and Grichka are creative souls. Read again the first sentence from
Jackiw's report:

"The author proposes a novel, speculative solution to the problem of the
pre-Big-Bang initial singularity, which cannot be analyzed within
conventional field theory." Notice two terms "novel" and "speculative".
Novel ideas are very often speculative. That's how it is. Read another
sentence:

"This paper entails the following fascinating phenomenon."

Notice the term "fascinating". There is something in the paper that
fascinates Jackiw. Now, remember, Jackiw is not just "some" physicist.
He is an expert in quantum field theory. Again, he has his own style.
His publications often contain ideas that only later on other physicists
are able to make sense of. Thus he understands what a "different style"
and "fascinating ideas" are, and how they work.

Look here:

http://phyvirtual.nju.edu.cn/mirror/www.ictp.trieste.it/~sci_info/awards/Dirac.html

In 1998 Jackiw, together with Stephen Adler received Dirac medal of
ICTP. For what?

Professor Roman Jackiw, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, USA

"Both Stephen Adler and Roman Jackiw have been leaders in the
sophisticated use of quantum field theory to illuminate physical
problems. The derivation by Adler (and, independently, Weisberger) of a
sum rule for pion-nucleon scattering marked a breakthrough in our
understanding of the currents and broken symmetries of the strong
interactions. Jackiw made a major contribution to field theories
relevant to condensed matter physics in his discovery (with Rebbi) of
fractional charge and spin in these theories. The paths of Adler and
Jackiw (with Bell) crossed in what may be their most important
discovery: the celebrated triangle anomaly, one of the most profound
examples of the relevance of quantum field theory to the real world."

My own path crossed several times with those of Roman Jackiw and Stephen
Adler. My paper on magnetic monopoles

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9803002

, written in collaboration with Gerard Emch, is a result of discussions
with Stephen Adler and it is
based on ideas that I developed paralelly to Jackiw (three-cocycles).

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0212058

True, I did not receive Dirac medal, but I received Humbold Award:

http://quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/bielefeld.htm

The last paragraph of the interview reads:

" wie viele engagierte Naturwissenschaftler beschreibt er sich selbst
als einen "work addict", der jede freie Minute mit seinen
Forschungsarbeiten verbringt. In einer autobiographischen Notiz schreibt
er: "Early in the 1970s I learned the strong version of the First Things
First Principle -: when something really interests you, make it not only
your first thing, but make it also the only thing."

And this I do share with Roman Jackiw. And I do agree with Roman Jackiw.
Now, again, back to Jackiw's report. Jackiw writes:

"the thesis and the published papers provide an excellent introduction
to these ideas, and can serve as a useful springboard for further
research in this area"

Read carefully these words: "and serve as a useful springboard".

Notice the term "useful". USEFUL.

Of course it will not be useful FOR YOU. It will not be useful for many
whining critics, those that are not able or not willing to create. It
will be utterly useless for them.

But there may be those for which the springboards put forward by Igor
and Grichka ca be "useful" - as springboards for further research.

Springboard is not the same as "spring". But you can spring farther
using a springboard that was built by someone else. You can - if you
want, and if you KNOW how. But if you don't - you can take an axe and
destroy your springboard, and have lot of fun exercising your powers. It
is all a question of knowledge and of choice.

There are those that do the jumps, and there are those who build
springboards. In fact those who build springboard first try jumping
themselves, and those who jump build (when they are so motivated) little
springboards of their own. Diversity is the important term here.

Read this:

"Opinion - Exclusion Of Diversity And Creativity Impedes Scientific
Innovation"

http://www.the-scientist.com/yr1995/nov/budget_951127.html

"Genius refers to one gifted with exceptional intellectual or creative
power. However, the original Latin translates literally to "guardian
spirit." This metaphysical quality of creative spirit is the
quintessence of genius. Geniuses seem to step outside themselves, beyond
the current ideas and institutional conventions of their time and place,
to create a new perspective. Here the cliché of the best and the
brightest, while not totally inaccurate, is certainly insufficient. By
nature, genius defies hierarchy and shatters any conventions that
attempt too tightly to encompass or define. Therefore, any search
process or strategy designed to predict geniuses will prove an exercise
in futility.

Genius, or even the best scientific minds, need not be searched for or
selected but allowed to develop. While genius cannot be predicted, it
can be promoted, discovered, and recognized. The creative spirit compels
geniuses to devise ideas and inventions, even in an environment hostile
to their work. To propagate genius and talent we need only inspire youth
and provide a diversity of educational and career opportunities that
encourage innovative and creative minds. To discover genius, we must
open our minds to ideas that may seem prima facie implausible. To reward
genius, those who accomplish must be recognized and supported. The best,
who possess the right stuff of genius, are not lost; and, if not
excluded, deprived of opportunity, or ignored, genius will assuredly
find us.

Exclusion of ideas created at the margins of mainstream science ensures
that not only the bad, but also the brilliant hypotheses of persons on a
path less traveled are ignored. Scientific ideas that lack the data that
will ultimately prove or disprove their validity are too often destroyed
before the worth of the hypothesis is determined. Many a novel concept
has been exiled to oblivion with the epitaph "you have no data; you
can't say that."

It is good when new ideas are being criticized, when errors are being
pointed out, when corrections are suggested. But it is not so good when
new ideas are simply bashed, because they do not comply to "standards."

Read again:

"Scientific ideas that lack the data that will ultimately prove or
disprove their validity are too often destroyed before the worth of the
hypothesis is determined. "

Is there a genetic code in the universe? Is the metric fluctuating?
Is there "imaginary time?" Was there a Big Bang? Are quantum groups
relevant? Is KMS condition relevant? How many dimensions does the space
have? What is time? What is energy? Can information be converted into
energy? What is quantum? It from bit?

These are important questions and they require lot of knowledge
and energy, perhaps some of the energy that is being wasted by those who
chop springboards ;-)

ark

ark 

--
Arkadiusz Jadczyk
http://quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/jadpub.htm
--