Skip to main content

Dirac and Beauty

Nobel laureate Paul Dirac, one of the fathers of quantum mechanics, has been a hero of mine ever since my teens. He was one of a mere handful of scientists whose grasp of theory was so strong he could predict the existence of something unknown in Nature (anti-matter) that was subsequently found exactly as he'd predicted. Recently Freeman Dyson offered a favourable review of a new Dirac biography by Graham Farmelo, in the latest New York Review of books, which contains some very thought-provoking ideas. Toward the end of this review Dyson claims that Dirac left a three-fold legacy to physics: the astounding discoveries of his fertile period 1920-33; a doctrine of mathematical beauty expounded over the remaining 50 years of his career; and a profound distaste for philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics (which I vigorously share).

Here is Dyson on the second phase: "
The second legacy is summarized in a statement that Dirac wrote at the end of his life: 'If you are receptive and humble, mathematics will lead you by the hand.'
... The doctrine of mathematical beauty is itself beautiful, and there is no doubt that Dirac believed it to be true. But it does not agree well with the historical facts. During the wonder years when he was making his great discoveries, his thinking was more concerned with practical details and less with abstract beauty. And during the long second half of Dirac's life, when he was preaching the doctrine of mathematical beauty, it did not lead him to important new discoveries."

This touches on an interesting question to which there's no sign of an answer yet, and may never be. Perhaps Dirac's faith in mathematical beauty is actually justified, but science also proceeds in fits and starts as described by Thomas Kuhn in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". A simple and beautiful principle is discovered which triggers many more discoveries that complicate and muddy the picture; then a deeper simple, beautiful principle emerges that clears the board once more; and so ad infinitum. Modern complexity theory shows clearly that very complex behaviours can arise from applying very simple rules (a beautiful illustration is the computer simulation Conway's Game of Life). So the really big question is this: is the reverse true, that every complex behaviour arises from the application of simple underlying rules that we haven't yet discovered. This is the modern form of an old dispute between rationalism and pragmatism, and therefore one of those philosophical disputes that Dirac so hated. Dyson is clearly on the pragmatist side, namely that Nature is at root complex and messy. I veer to the other pole.

Whichever is right, it's a far more interesting problem than those fashionable fairy-tales that purport to be interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the many-worlds hypothesis. Such pretentious cosmological speculations always end up in the same place, namely that there's another
copy of you somewhere else in this universe (perhaps infinitely many). The whiff of incense is overpowering - this is just Heaven by another name, the egoists' inability to face the fact that their personal identity will cease upon death. 

originally posted 11 Feb 2010 12:43 by Dick Pountain   [ updated 11 Feb 2010 13:40 ]


Popular posts from this blog

A New Age of Sabotage

I haven't posted much recently because every time I think of something to say, the extraordinary pace of events makes it sound lame by the next morning: New York under water, Obama re-elected, News International in the dock, rockets falling on Tel Aviv, and that's even before we reach the Mayan apocalypse on Dec 21. However I've finally plucked up courage to wade into the torrent of the miraculous-horrific thanks to a fortunate discovery on the web. In this previous post I confessed an increasing interest in the radical Norwegian-American economist Thorstein Veblen, but that interest was quite narrowly based on reading only three of his works, namely The Theory of the Leisure Class, The Theory of Business Enterprise and his important essay The Socialist Economics of Karl Marx and His Followers. This wasn't just due to laziness but to the difficulty of obtaining many of Veblen's books, which have been out of print for a long time.

But I re-read Veblen's Wikiped…

Trump of Doom?

Thought for the day. The type of economy we call social democracy depended for its success on a willingness of the majority of the population to cooperate as well as compete with one another, giving up a portion of their income in taxes to be spent on various public goods like medicine, education and transport. If the population loses its willingness to make these reasonable sacrifices then it becomes impossible to maintain a social democracy.

The UK population was so willing for at least 30 years following WWII, to a large extent thanks to the experience of necessary cooperation among the generation who fought that war. But over the *last* 30+ years that willingness has been steadily eroded by many factors, including (but by no means confined to): greater individualism stemming from precisely the relative affluence and economic freedom that post-war social democracy conferred; successive economic crises (some related to oil, some to financial recklessness); industrial decline, outsou…

Collapse of the Left

The devastating setbacks recently suffered by the Left in the UK, USA, Turkey, Hungary and Poland (perhaps soon to be followed by more within the EU) have not yet lead to any satisfactory explanation of what is going wrong. They're still largely discussed in terms of Right v Left, but using partially outdated definitions of what these terms imply.

For the first half of the 20th century, the democratic Left was associated with socialised services, economic regulation, high wages and worker's rights,, while the Right espoused militarism, privatised services, free markets and low wages. The 1960s counterculture crucially changed the beliefs of the so called New Left in the direction of pacifism, minority rights and social libertarianism, and these positions have now merged into the mainstream Left to produce a bewildering range of different combinations and sects.

The Right still likes militarism, free markets, and individualism but has also adopted substantial parts of New Left …