Showing posts with label A: Einstein Albert. Show all posts
Showing posts with label A: Einstein Albert. Show all posts

Sunday, March 16, 2014

Time and the freedom to think

The other day, I was complaining to a colleague that the academic system, with its constant pressure to publish or perish, did not encourage real breakthroughs to be made in science, because it encourages scientists to tackle the easiest problems that will allow them to publish fast. I have just stumbled upon this quotation, which perfectly supports my point (see also this quotation by Einstein).

"Julian Barbour is known to many who follow science as the author of The End of Time, in which he argues that time is an illusion. He is an unusual physicist, who, since receiving his doctorate in 1968 from the University of Cologne, has never held an academic job. But he has been highly influencial among the small group of people who think seriously about quantum gravity, for it was he who taught us what it means to make a background-independent theory.
As Barbour tells it, on a climbing trip during graduate school, he was seized by a vision that time might be an illusion. This led him to investigate the roots of our understanding of time, contained in the general theory of relativity. He realized that he could not make a conventional academic career worrying about the nature of time. He also realized that if he was going to work on that problem, he would have to concentrate on it fully, without being distracted by the pressures of a normal career in physics. So he bought an old farmhouse in a little village half an hour from Oxford, brought his new wife there, and settled down to think about time. It was ten years or so before he had something to report back to his colleagues. During that period, he and his wife had four children, and he worked part-time as a translator to support them. The translating took him no more than twenty hours a week, leaving him as much time for thinking as most academic scientists have after the responsabilities of teaching and administration are taken into account.
To get a bearing on the meaning ot time in general relativity, Barbour read deeply into the subject, working his way back through the history of physics and philosophy. He finally was able to invent a new kind of theory, in which space and time are nothing but a system of relationships. His papers on this subject slowly began to be noticed, and eventually he became an honored member of the quantum-gravity community. His reinterpretation of Einstein's general theory of relativity as a relational theory is now the way we in the field understand it.
This is not nearly all that Barbour has done, but it's enough to show how the career of a successful seer differs from that of a conventional academic scientist. Such a person does not follow fashion — in fact, probably does not even follow a field well enough to know what the fashion is. People like this are driven by nothing except a conviction, gained early, that everyone else is missing something crucial. Their approach is more scholarly, in that to think clearly they have to read through the whole history of the question that obsesses them. Their work is intensely focused, yet it takes them a long time to get somewhere. In furtherance of an academic career there is no output whatsoever. Julian Barbour, when he was ready, changed science more than most academic scientists have, but at an age when most academic physicists are up for tenure, he had absolutely nothing to show for his work.
Barbour's career resembles that of other seers, like Charles Darwin, who also retreated to the English countryside to find the room to think through an idea that obsessed him. Einstein spent ten years thinking about the ideas that became special relativity, and then spent the next ten inventing general relativity. Time and the freedom to think, then, are all that a seer needs to find that unexamined assumption. The rest they do themselves."

Lee Smolin, "The trouble with physics" (p. 321-322).

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

It is all about perseverance

"It's not that I'm so smart. It's just that I stay with problems longer."

Albert Einstein, quoted by Lee Smolin (The trouble with physics, p. 309).

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

What kind of scientist are you?


"As I reflect on the scientific careers of the people I have known these last thirty years, it seems to me more and more that these career decisions hinge on character. Some people will happily jump on the next big thing, give it all they've got, and in this way make important contributions to fast-moving fields. Others just don't have the temperament to do this. Some people need to think through everything very carefully, and this takes time, as they get easily confused. It's not hard to feel superior to such people, until you remember that Einstein was one of them. In my experience, the truly shocking new ideas and innovations tend to come from such people. Still others — and I belong to this third group — just have to go their own way, and will flee fields for no better reason than that it offends them that some people are joining in because it feels good to be on the winning side. So I no longer get bothered when I disagree with what other people are doing, because I see that temperament pretty much determines what kind of science they will do. Luckily for science, the contributions of the whole range of types are needed. Those who do good science, I've come to think, do so because they choose problems that are suited to them."

Lee Smolin, "The trouble with physics" (p. 95).

I think I belong to the second group of scientists who need to think through everything very carefully and get easily confused, although don't expect shocking new ideas and innovations to come out of me! What about you, dear reader?

Monday, June 9, 2008

Abeilles

Je n'y avais jamais pensé, mais c'est un exemple frappant de l'importance qu'une seule espèce animale particulière peut avoir pour l'Homme:

"Einstein ne disait-il pas que si les abeilles disparaissaient, l'humanité en avait pour quatre ans ? Qui pollenisera la nature à leur place ?"

Geneviève Ferone, 2030, le krach écologique, chapitre "Terre et mer nourricières ?".

Saturday, January 26, 2008

Recherche et réciprocité

Un argument fondamental contre la direction que le gouvernement français actuel veut donner à la recherche (à savoir diminuer la recherche fondamentale financée par les fonds publiques au profit de la recherche appliquée financée par les entreprises):

"Depuis 1980, date où General Electric réussit à faire breveter un gène, les firmes américaines peuvent breveter le vivant. Depuis, des milliers de gènes sont brevetés, comme ceux prédisposant au cancer du sein. Du coup, les laboratoires rivaux travaillant sur le cancer du sein ne peuvent plus faire d'expérimentation sur ces gènes. La recherche sur le cancer du sein est fortement pénalisée. Certes, la firme ayant déposé le brevet peut arguer du fait qu'elle a dans son équipe le petit génie qui va guérir le cancer du sein. Mais c'est méconnaître une loi fondamentale de la recherche: la masse et la réciprocité.
Pourquoi la Chine fit-elle toutes les découvertes importantes de l'Humanité avant la révolution industrielle ? Parce qu'elle était le pays le plus peuplé du monde, le pays où les apprentissages, les itérations, les erreurs répétées et corrigées et les découvertes étaient plus fréquents qu'ailleurs. De même, pourquoi y eut-il tant de chercheurs géniaux autour d'Einstein (Gamow, Pauli, Schröedinger...) ? Parce que celui-ci ne protégeait pas ses découvertes comme un avare sa cassette. Et pourtant, Einstein savait parfaitement ce qu'était un brevet: il travaillait à l'Office des brevets de Berne et déposa des brevets à titre personnel. Mais ce n'est qu'en communiquant avec les autres chercheurs qu'il avança, et que ceux-ci progressèrent. La science est quelque chose de trop sérieux pour la laisser aux entreprises, guidées par la seule loi du profit à court terme. La recherche n'avance pas de manière masquée. Elle ignore le concept de propriété. Einstein ne s'est jamais cru le propriétaire de ses équations, ni même, modestement, leur inventeur. Il savait qu'il devait trop à ceux qui cherchaient en même temps que lui.*"

* Un chercheur, le docteur Marra, a réussi à séquencer le génome du virus du Sras, laissant espérer un traitement et, pourquoi pas, un vaccin contre cette maladie. Aussitôt, la firme pour laquelle il travaillait a déposé un brevet. Le docteur Marra a refusé d'associer son nom au brevet, arguant de ce que les séquences d'ADN sont des découvertes, et non des inventions et, en ce sens, non brevetables. Chapeau, docteur Marra !

Bernard Maris, dans l'Antimanuel d'économie. 2. Les cigales, chapitre "La revanche de la coopération" (note ajoutée de l'auteur, accentuation en gras personnelle).

Sunday, July 29, 2007

The principle of simplicity

"Simplicity is (or should be) the object of scientific work [...] Theory, and its applications in observational work and numerical modeling, provide us with hope for simplicity. Without it, at least as an organizing principle if not as detailed 'prediction', we are left with a hopeless morass of detail, and become idiot savants reeling off accurate but unorganized masses of factual detail."
(Peter Rhines, in "Future of Physical Oceanography").

This reminds me of a well-known quotation from Albert Einstein:
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler".