Google Announces Quantum Supremacy Again

Google announces what appears to be quantum supremacy:

Today I’m delighted to announce Willow, our latest quantum chip. Willow has state-of-the-art performance across a number of metrics, enabling two major achievements.

The first is that Willow can reduce errors exponentially as we scale up using more qubits. This cracks a key challenge in quantum error correction that the field has pursued for almost 30 years.

Second, Willow performed a standard benchmark computation in under five minutes that would take one of today’s fastest supercomputers 10 septillion (that is, 1025) years — a number that vastly exceeds the age of the Universe.

We have been down this road before. These results are published in the Nature journal, showing that they are accepted as correct.

This mind-boggling number exceeds known timescales in physics and vastly exceeds the age of the universe. It lends credence to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes, in line with the idea that we live in a multiverse, a prediction first made by David Deutsch. ...

Of course, as happened after we announced the first beyond-classical computation in 2019, we expect classical computers to keep improving on this benchmark, but the rapidly growing gap shows that quantum processors are peeling away at a double exponential rate and will continue to vastly outperform classical computers as we scale up.

I reported on these claims of double exponential growth back in 2019.

Have I been proved wrong? Possibly. They are still not computing anything useful, but just using the quantum computer to generate random numbers in a way that is hard to simulate in other ways. I will be interested to see what other skeptics say.

I do not think that this is any evidence for the multiverse. I will also be interested to see if the other many-worlds advocates claim this work.

Update: Gil Kalai reiterates his criticism of Google's big 2019 claim of quantum supremacy, and concludes:

I usually don’t mind “hype” as a reflection of scientists’ enthusiasm for their work and the public’s excitement about scientific endeavors. However, in the case of Google, some caution is warranted, as the premature claims in 2019 may have had significant consequences. For example, following the 2019 “supremacy” announcement, the value of Bitcoin dropped (around October 24, 2019, after a period of stability) from roughly $9,500 to roughly $8,500 in just a few days, representing a loss for investors of more than ten billion dollars. (The value today is around $100,000.) Additionally, Google’s assertions may have imposed unrealistic challenges on other quantum computing efforts and encouraged a culture of undesirable scientific methodologies.

The paper is paywalled and still being editing. All you can download is the abstract and list of about 100 Google authors.

Update: Google promotional video.

Update: Scott Aaronson comments. In short, he thinks Google made a big advance, but there is still a long way to go to get anything useful, or even a true logical qubit.

If someone thinks we’re about to get personal QCs that will speed up everything we do, they need to be told that “the age of QC” is not upon us (and indeed, might never be).

If, on the other hand, someone thinks QC is all a scam or a misconception, and quantum error-correction can never work in the real world, they need to be told that “the age of QC” is now upon us. ...

Gil Kalai #23: So we’re perfectly clear, from my perspective your position has become like that of Saddam Hussein’s information minister, who repeatedly went on TV to explain how Iraq was winning the war even as American tanks rolled into Baghdad. I.e., you are writing to us from an increasingly remote parallel universe.

Okay, tough talk, but Aaronson concedes that all Google did was to generate unverifiable random numbers. They are unverifiable because it would take a classical supercomputer longer than the lifetime of the universe to regenerate them, and there is no other way to verify them. It is not like factoring a large number, where the factorization is easy to verify.

As an analogy that someone gave, you can drop a glass vase onto the floor, shattering it into pieces, and it is nearly impossible for a simulator to reproduce what you have done. But you have not done anything useful, either.

Brains have Difficulty with Zero

SciAm reports:

Zero can be conceptualized at several levels, including as an “absence,” a special category of emptiness, a quantity or as a number used in calculations. Although many animals have a number sense, Nieder, who has studied crows and monkeys, suspects that only humans use zero mathematically.

Furthermore, numeric zero, as used in mathematics, is something that humans need to learn about from others—it’s not an innate concept. Children generally cannot understand it until about age six. That’s roughly two years later than other numbers.

The notion that zero is somehow distinct comes from studies of brain injury as well. About 14 percent of people who have had a stroke may be unable to read or process numbers that include a zero digit, points out Barnett.

Age 6? In my experience, most adults have trouble grasping the zero. Also negative numbers.

The trouble with tracing the origin of zero is that not everyone agrees about what qualifies as understanding zero. There is zero in the sense of lacking whatever is being counted. There is zero as a placeholder in a positional notation, such as the number 105. And there is zero as the number between the positives and negatives.

I think credit for zero should require having a symbol for it, and having text that describes zero just like any other number.

I believe Ptolemy had tables of angles, where a zero angle was in the table just like positive angles. I don't think he had any negative angles, though.

Ancient people did measurements in directions of North, East, South, West. It seems as if they must have understood that if they go 10 miles east and then 20 miles west, they will be 10 miles west, and that is the same as -10 miles east. And if they go back to where they started, then the net displacement is zero. Maps could thus describe locations with positive and negative coordinates. As far as I know, there is no ancient text or map that does this.

All this must have been obvious to Kepler and Newton. But did they really treat zero just like other numbers? I don't know.

Here is a blog post from the world's smartest mathematician, defining the natural numbers as { 1, 2, 3, ... }. Why no zero? Including zero makes much more logical sense. Obviously Terry Tao understand zero as well as anyone, and yet he has a reluctance to call it a natural number.

The Universe is Finite, not Infinite

Dr. Bee addresses the question: Is the Universe Infinite or Finite?

She correctly explains that we do not know. There have been attempts to prove that the universe is finite, but there is no way to prove that it is infinite.

Is the universe really infinite? Or could it close back on itself like a sphere? If it’s infinite, how can it expand? And is it true that there might be copies of you in it? Today I want to explain how much we know about those questions and what the expansion of space has to do with Hilbert's Hotel.

She explains:

3:02 You could ask now, well, if those are all things we measure on the inside, what sense 3:09 does it even make to call this curvature. Couldn’t we just say that spacetime is flat, 3:14 just that these observables have difficult relations that are mediated by some sort of field. 3:20 Indeed, this is a valid interpretation of the maths, that you refuse to give this a geometric 3:26 interpretation and instead just say gravity is determined by some sort of complicated field. 3:32 This is why Steven Weinberg in his book on general relativity famously refused to use a 3:38 geometric interpretation. You don’t need it. And if you don’t need the geometric interpretation, 3:43 why subscribe to it. ...

3:56 That said, most physicists use the geometric interpretation, I believe because it makes it 4:01 easier to visualize things. Either way, the relevant point is that General Relativity is 4:06 entirely about what happens inside of space-time. This also answers the often-asked question, 4:13 if the universe expands, then what does it expand into? The answer is that that’s a meaningless 4:19 question.

I think that it was Poincare, in his very popular 1902 book, Science and Hypothesis, where he made the point that we cannot truly tell whether space is curved. We could just adjust our Physics formulas to account for the curvature. He said flat space was just a convention.

Einstein also had an attitude similar to Weinberg's book. That the geometric interpretation is interesting, but not really essential to the Physics. I was surprised to learn this, as almost everyone credits Einstein with having the geometric interpretation. But he denied it.

Almost everyone else accepts the geometry as being essential to the Physics, and not just a conventional Math interpretation.

Infinities cannot be observed, so mathematical models of spacetime can be finite or infinite, as a matter of convenience. The infinity is physically meaningless.

Here is where she loses me:

9:22 If spacetime is really infinite, then that has the odd consequence that every 9:27 possible configuration of matter appears infinitely many times. That includes you, 9:33 unless you are an impossible configuration of matter, 9:36 in which case, please tell me more about your workout schedule in the comments.

9:41 So in an infinite universe there would be infinitely many copies of you and 9:45 also versions with very small alterations. Somewhat more hair. Somewhat less brain. A 9:52 physics degree or a desire for mathematical self-torture, but then I repeat myself.

9:57 It’s not a new insight. To my best knowledge it was first discussed by George Ellis and 10:02 Graham Brundrit in 1979. George Ellis by the way is one of the people who I 10:07 interviewed about the multiverse for my first book. That an infinitely extended 10:12 universe would have infinitely many copies of each of us is often considered the simplest, 10:18 and least controversial type of multiverse.

She is correct that many astrophysicists accept this multiverse as so self-evident to be not controversial, and yet it is a crazy idea. There are not infinitely copies of each us, and it is almost meaningless to talk about such foolishness. The observable universe is finite, and does not include copies of yourself. Even if the universe were infinite, there is no reason to believe that all possibilities would be replicated indefinitely. You would have to assume that all possible conditions are being recreated infinitely. Any such talk is like theology -- beliefs that are not grounded in science.

She talks about the possibility of the universe being finite and closed, like a torus. Most models have an open spacetime where space has an infinite extent, but there might be only a bounded portion of it with matter in it. The unoccupied space beyond our observation is just a mathematical convenience, with no reality.

Feynman Never Wrote a Book

So says physicist and youtuber Angela Collier, in the sham legacy of Richard Feynman.

She does not like him, and trashes him. She also explains that all his books are ghostwritten.

Several books are attributed to him, especially his two autobiographies.

The books have many amusing stories, and she argues that most of them are made up.

She has a funny personality, different from most physics, and she is entertaining. She makes some good arguments. Watch it, and lower your opinion of Feynman.

She does have a bunch of positive things to say about him. Her main point is that the legend is very misleading.

Schantz on Origins of Special Relativity

Hans G. Schantz posts a discussion of sources for Einstein and relativity:

Perhaps the evidence is only circumstantial that Einstein plagiarized relativity, but should we extend the benefit of the doubt to one who has clearly hidden the evidence?

By failing to note his influencers and predecessors, like Poincaré and Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1853–1928), Einstein created lasting disputes about the extent to which his thinking was original and how much it was derivative. ... The point is, they should not have had to do this. Einstein exhibited a shockingly cavalier attitude toward citing references throughout his career.

There is some question about whether Einstein saw Lorentz's 1904 paper and Poincare's 1905 paper on relativity. But it is pretty clear that he read their earlier papers.

In particular, in 1905 Einstein got the constant speed of light and the Lorentz transformations from Lorentz, and he got clock synchronization of the relativity principle from Poincare. He only got the crucial idea of four-dimensional Minkowski space from Minkowski several years later. It is not clear that he ever accepted the geometrical interpretation that is common in textbooks today.

How Colleges got Politicized

English professor Michael W. Clune writes:

We Asked for It
The politicization of research, hiring, and teaching made professors sitting ducks.

Over the past 10 years, I have watched in horror as academe set itself up for the existential crisis that has now arrived. Starting around 2014, many disciplines — including my own, English — changed their mission. Professors began to see the traditional values and methods of their fields — such as the careful weighing of evidence and the commitment to shared standards of reasoned argument — as complicit in histories of oppression. As a result, many professors and fields began to reframe their work as a kind of political activism.

In reading articles and book manuscripts for peer review, or in reviewing files when conducting faculty job searches, I found that nearly every scholar now justifies their work in political terms. This interpretation of a novel or poem, that historical intervention, is valuable because it will contribute to the achievement of progressive political goals. Nor was this change limited to the humanities. Venerable scientific journals — such as Nature — now explicitly endorse political candidates; computer-science and math departments present their work as advancing social justice. Claims in academic arguments are routinely judged in terms of their likely political effects.

The costs of explicitly tying the academic enterprise to partisan politics in a democracy were eminently foreseeable and are now coming into sharp focus. Public opinion of higher education is at an all-time low. The incoming Trump administration plans to use the accreditation process to end the politicization of higher education — and to tax and fine institutions up to “100 percent” of their endowment. I believe these threats are serious because of a simple political calculation of my own: If Trump announced that he was taxing wealthy endowments down to zero, the majority of Americans would stand up and cheer.

It was all unnecessary. Colleges could have stayed out of overtly political issues, especially the ones outside their professional expertise.

Update: Here is an example of how far colleges have degenerated, from a Jewish magazine:

A man sentenced to life imprisonment for involvement in the murder of four Jews in a French synagogue bombing is teaching a “social justice” course at a Canadian university.

Dr Hassan Diab, a Lebanese-Canadian citizen, was found guilty by a French court for taking part in the 1980 bombing outside the Rue Copernic Reform synagogue in Paris, which killed four people and injured 46.

He is employed at Carleton University, in Ottawa, Canada, as a teacher in sociology and is delivering a class this autumn titled “Social Justice in Action”.

Horgan defends SciAm Politicization

I mentioned that the SciAm Editor is Fired, and former SciAm writer seems to be the only one defending her.

He maligns evolutionist Jerry Coyne, who argues back. See also Jesse Singal.

I post this so that you can see that it is a real dispute. The SciAm editor would surely say that scientists should be aware of the dangers of Trump fascism or transphobia or some other political issue. I wish the magazine would stick to science. Others can debate the pros and cons of Trump.

If SciAm were to address political issues, then it should at least provide some balanced coverage. But no, it forbids any articles expressing contrary views. Sorry, that is not a scientific view.

Update: Michael Shermer adds his experience::

I wrote 214 consecutive monthly columns for Sci Am, from 2001–19. Only two of these were rejected, both in 2018.

SciAm Editor is Fired

Jerry Coyne reports:

The facts are that Helmuth had a total social-media meltdown the night of the election (see her tweets here), for which she later apologized (see tweet here).  People called for her to be fired given the tenor of what she wrote, but I’ve never done that. We don’t know if she resigned or was fired, and it really makes no difference.

Her tweets revealed her to be a crazy leftist Trump-hater, but I would not have fired her for that. I do not believe in canceling people for emotional outbursts of silly opinions.

She should have been fired for turning Scientific American into a radical woke propaganda magazine that put ideology ahead of science. Trump just announced appointing RFKjr to HHS yesterday afternoon, and SciAm already has an article attacking him!

Update: More info at Unherd:

Four years ago, it made a presidential endorsement in support of Joe Biden for the first time in its 175-year history. ...

Helmuth’s tenure also saw the publication of articles that blurred the lines between scientific research and activism. A 2021 article, “From Civil Rights to Black Lives Matter”, addressed what makes various social justice movements successful. “Social movements have likely existed for as long as oppressive human societies have, but only in the past few centuries has their praxis […] developed into a craft, to be learned and honed,” the article read. Several articles argued in favour of abortions, with one headline claiming: “Third-Trimester Abortions Are Moral and Necessary Health Care.”

The outlet published numerous articles promoting transgender medical interventions. It also published articles advocating against age restrictions for these procedures. One such article claimed that “a decade of research shows such treatment reduces depression, suicidality and other devastating consequences of trans preteens and teens being forced to undergo puberty in the sex they were assigned at birth”, a proposition that has come under international scrutiny in recent years.

Tech's Longest-Running Hoax

An investor channel reports: Quantum Computing: Tech's Longest-Running Hoax

you may need 14:12 hundreds or even thousands of physical 14:14 cubits in each logical Cubit the point 14:17 is if you want to make a quantum 14:18 computer capable of doing anything 14:20 useful you will need a lot of cubits 14:22 current estimates say that you would 14:23 need 20 million cubits to break RSA 14:25 encryption if you want to cure cancer or 14:28 solve global climate change you would 14:29 need orders of magnitude more than this 14:32 today the largest quantum computers have 14:34 about 1,000 cubits so we multiple orders 14:37 of magnitude away from achieving 14:38 anything useful the Bulls say that 14:40 Quantum technology has already been 14:42 proven if the industry continues making 14:44 advances they'll eventually be able to 14:46 do something useful however there are 14:48 well-respected academics who think that 14:50 a useful quantum computer is not 14:51 possible even in theory the most notable 14:54 of these Skeptics are the Israeli math 14:56 professor Gil kalai and the Russian 14:58 physics professor male jackinov they 15:01 both argue that Quantum bits are 15:02 inherently unstable as the number of 15:04 cubits increases the number of quantum 15:06 States increases exponentially this 15:08 level of complexity makes a sufficiently 15:10 large quantum computer impossible to 15:12 control even in theory to be clear Dr 15:15 Kai and Dr dakov are in the minority the 15:18 majority of researchers in the field 15:20 argue that a quantum computer will one 15:21 day be possible there's a strong 15:24 incentive for academics to be optimistic 15:26 many academics have dedicated Decades of 15:28 their lives to study Quantum Computing 15:30 if you come out and say this was all a 15:32 waste of time that wouldn't exactly be 15:34 good for your funding or career 15:36 prospects

The video is accurate. Quantum computing companies have already gone public and then bankrupt.

Academics are Depressed about Trump

Peter Woit is depressed about the election, and rants that now we are Living in a Post-truth World

On the American democracy front, the Trump phenomenon embodies post-truth in its purest form, with the full triumph now of a movement devoted to saying whatever will get them to power, with less than no interest in whether any of it is true.

He complains that super-smart physicists promote untenable string theory, or as one comment says:

Indeed, if Physics PhDs can look you in the eye and say that they really believe that wormholes form when you entangle spins simply because Maldacena and Susskind say so, why should you be so surprised that people get taken in by demagogues?

Okay, but Woit also complains that big money was allowed to influence the election, that Fox News was allowed to be different from the other networks, and that Trump won the less educated voters and lost the more educated voters!

This make no sense. The big money outspent Trump maybe 3-to-1, or 5-to-1, in the election.

If the super-high-IQ super-educated physicsts can be wrong about string theory and entangled electron wormholes, then why can't they be wrong about Trump?

The whole idea that the Democrats are on the side of Truth, and Trump is opposed, is absurd. These Trump-haters cannot give any examples.

Kamala Harris knows nothing about science. The closest she gets is dopey babbling like:

So, let me say this: This is an issue that Josi actually highlighted in terms of the importance of this. The Governor and I and we were all doing a tour of the library here and talking about the significance of the passage of time. Right? The significance of the passage of time.

So, when you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time in terms of what we need to do to lay these wires, what we need to do to create these jobs. And there is such great significance to the passage of time when we think about a day in the life of our children and what that means to the future of our nation, depending on whether or not they have the resources they need to achieve their God-given talent.

She also said she believes in Astrology!

I don't want to pick on Woit, as he lives in a bubble where no one supports Trump. Most of American elite academia have Trump Derangement Syndrome. They have no grasp of what Trumpism is about, and can only babble platitudes about Truth.

I cannot even figure out what Woit means by "post-truth", as he only gives a few hints. He mentions Newt Gingrich, who was House Speaker for several years in the 1990s. He is mostly known for passing some reforms, after the other party controlled for decades. He mentions Fox News reporting on Clinton Whitewater, but that was an investigation ordered by Clinton's attorney general. Not much came of it. Mentions a Michio Kaku book on parallel universes. Yes, that is all a big fantasy.

Perhaps Woit is alluding to Trump's reputation for exaggeration. Yes, he sometimes exaggerates. He claimed to pull off the greatest comeback in American political history, if not world history. Dubious. Nevertheless, he is a much more authentical character than Kamala Harris. He is what he appears to be. Harria was unable or unwilling to say who she is, and what her agenda is. She convinced people that she is pro-abortion and hates Trump, and nothing else. Those voting for her had very little idea what she stood for.

Harris and Walz also told a great many lies.

I think Woit is from another country, and may have very little understanding of American politics. His criticisms are lazy and stupid. Trump was President for four years, and it was four years of peace and prosperity. Disagree with him if you want, but most of the opposition to him consists of calling him a fascist. His decisive win in the election is from a common and informed view that he was the much better candidate.

Attention for Hossenfelder's Science Channel

NPR reports:

The dark days of the COVID-19 pandemic helped transform Sabine Hossenfelder into an unlikely social media star. ...

Hossenfelder's science channel has also become a ready platform for her somewhat contrarian views on the state of physics. Among them is what she sees as the problem of beauty, the pursuit of simplicity. Specifically, how her colleagues who try to fathom the fundamental underpinnings of the universe are obsessed with it. ...

But as we seek answers in a complex universe, Hossenfelder cautions that the quest for simplicity could be a dead end. ...

Posting videos to the internet, it turns out, generates a more reliable revenue stream to fund her work in quantum gravity.

Her videos have a lot of good info, but quantum gravity is a waste of time.

A less favorable review from Professor Dave:

Sabine Hossenfelder is a very popular science communicator who focuses largely on topics in physics. Although much of her content is effective and without issue, there is an undercurrent of anti-establishment rhetoric that has grown immensely as of late, and it is an enormous problem. Sabine is a not a charlatan like most of my other targets, and this is not a hit piece, but rather commentary on this aspect of her work and how it came to be. If you are a fan of hers, consider this perspective.

Professor Dave is not a professor, and not a physicist. His main complaint is that she has harsh words for those doing Physics research, and he says there is lots of good reseach. But her main gripes are with those doing dead-end research in certain foundational and speculative areas.

She has a new video in response, where she doubles down on her point that the last 50 years have made no progress in foundational issues.

I would say quantum gravity is one of those dead-end areas where all or nearly all research is worthless.

Actually I might argue that foundational Physics has made negative progress, as many have jumped on absurd theories like many-worlds.

Because Professor Dave is not a physicist, I don't think he appeciates how much theoretical Physics has lost its way.

Both of these channels have a lot of worthwhile videos. My main beef with her is that she subscribes to superdeterminism, a concept contrary to the whole scientific enterprise.

Update: Professor Dave has doubled down with another attack video:

I criticized some unprofessional behavior regarding her choice of titles, thumbnails, and generalized deceptive anti-science rhetoric which has clearly been fueling science denial among the public in large numbers. ... All of those people wanted to talk about academia, so let's talk about academia a little bit in this video, while also addressing an unbelievably immature response video from Sabine where she doubled down on all of her bullshit rhetoric and made things much, much worse for herself.

He goes on to say Hossenfelder is a science denier.

This is how we get politicians voted into office 4:40 with fascist leanings. This is how the slide down the slippery slope towards theocracy 4:45 gains momentum. This is how we get people trying to force religion into public schools, and into federal laws. With Trump returning to office, he may follow through with his promise 4:56 to put RFK in charge of the department of health. RFK. An anti-vaxxer who has said that chemicals 5:03 in the environment can turn kids gay and trans and that HIV does not cause AIDS, may soon be 5:10 in charge of the FDA, NIH, USDA, and CDC. Are you listening to me? ...

As a global society we are sliding towards idiocracy, 5:37 and our survival as a species is at stake. Sabine feeds people narratives that are conducive to 5:43 those modes of thought, and in doing so she is pushing them further down the pseudoscience pipeline where they are more likely to be ensnared by actual demagogues and charlatans.

Meanwhile, Dr. Bee is back with My problem with the black hole information loss problem. She has legitimate complaints about unscientific papers about black hole information physics. Prof. Dave wants to blame her for Trump getting elected.

Nature Magazine Endorsed Kamala Harris

As I write this, the election has not been called, but I want to draw attention to the Nature editorial endorsing Kamala Harris.

I don't know why a British science journal needs to get involved in partisan USA politics.

Harris said on 22 October that her administration will not be a continuation of the Biden presidency. She has said she wants to build an “opportunity economy”. Precisely what that means is yet to be defined — a science- and evidence-based approach needs to be at its core.

That record is in stark contrast to what happened during Trump’s presidency, from 2017 to 2021. As president, Trump not only repeatedly ignored research-informed knowledge, but also undermined national and global science and public-health agencies. He has denied climate science, lied about the federal government’s response to hurricane forecasts and asked scientists to investigate whether disinfectants could be used to treat people with COVID-19.

This is too stupid for science editors.

If Harris is unable or unwilling to say what she will do, why are you endorsing her? She appears to be of low intelligence, and to know nothing about science.

The Trump complaints are about how he once wrote on a weather map with a sharpie, and he once commented favorably about a medical report about disinfecting covid.

I do not think Trump said or did anything wrong in either of these cases, but even if he did, they are trivialities.

Trump was President for four years. Did science research suffer? Did he make any anti-science decisions? There is no substantive criticism of Trump, and nothing concrete about what Harris will do.

This is just more evidence about how the science establishment has lost its way.

Update: Nature endorsed Harris in July, and again just before the election, and now it panics about Trump's win.

Scientists around the world expressed disappointment and alarm as Republican Donald Trump won the final votes needed to secure the US presidency in the early hours of 6 November. On account of Trump’s anti-science rhetoric and actions during his previous term in office, many are now bracing for four years of attacks on scientists, both in and outside the government.

“In my long life of 82 years ... there has hardly been a day when I felt more sad,” says Fraser Stoddart, a Nobel laureate who left the United States last year and is now a member of the chemistry department at the University of Hong Kong. “I’ve witnessed something that I feel is extremely bad, not just for the United States, but for all of us in the world.” ...

Worries pouring in this morning align with those expressed by the majority of readers who responded last month to a survey conducted by Nature. More than 2,000 people answered the poll, with 86% saying that they favoured Harris, owing to concerns including climate change, public health and the state of US democracy. Some even said they would consider changing where they live or study if Trump won. ...

Of those who responded to Nature’s reader survey, 6% expressed a preference for Trump — usually citing concerns about security issues and the economy.

Wow, people who do not even live in the USA are complaining that we elected a President who believes in America First.

Meanwhile, they do not mention that Harris is a moron who knows nothing about science, and who believes in Astrology.

Aaronson reaches full Trump Derangement

Dr. Quantum Supremacy, Scott Aaronson previously announced he is Never-Trump From Here to Eternity, and now writes Letter to a Jewish voter in Pennsylvania.

In short, he has full Trump Derangement Syndrome. He endorses Kamala Harris, but has nothing good to say about her, except that she is not Trump. He is Jewish, and he acknowledges that his Orthodox and Israeli friends much prefer Trump. He also cites a couple of other Jews who are paranoid Trump-haters.

I am not going to try to answer it, because it is the ravings of a madman. Trump was President for four years, and it was a period of peace and prosperity, except for covid. Aaronson has no quibble with that, but is obvious triggered by Trump's personality.

He sounds like a paranoid schizophrenic. He is so crazy as to question his judgment on anything else.

He complains that he found these comments on X-Twitter:

“Shut the fuck up, Zio, and stop murdering babies.”

“Two-state solution? I have a different proposal: that all you land-thieves pack your bags and go back to Poland.”

“you Jews have been hated and expelled from all the world’s countries for thousands of years, yet you never consider that the common factor is you.”

“Your own Talmud commands you to kill goyim children, so that’s why you’re doing it.”

“Even while you maintain apartheid in Palestine, you cynically import millions of third-world savages to White countries, in order to destroy them.”

None of this is from Trump or Republicans. Since the Gaza War started on Oct. 7, 2023, a faction of the USA Left and Democrats have become anti-Israel and anti-Jewish. Aaronson is obviously unhappy about this, and firmly sides with Israel in the war, but it is completely crazy to see this as a reason to vote against Trump.

One can have political disagreements about taxes, or Ukraine aid, or abortion, or 100 other issues. That is not what is happening here. He probably agrees with Trump on a lot of those issues.

Aaronson also believes in many-worlds theory, where all possibilities happen in parallel universes. He said Google had achieved quantum supremacy by generating random numbers. Now he worries that AI will destroy mankind.

Smart people can believe in crazy stuff.

Is Light Composed of Photons?

A popular channel tries to answer What is a Photon?

The simple answer is that light is composed of photons. A photon is a ball of light. A wise guy commenter gives the more sophisticated answer:

The special relativistic wave equation that accurately describes electrons is the Dirac equation. The Dirac Lagrangian density for electrons has got a local U(1) symmetry because of local causality and local charge conservation (Noether's theorem). U(1) symmetry, because we only ever observe the absolute value squared of the wave function.

This can be modeled in gauge theory as an S^1 fiber bundle (or a U(1) Lie-algebra valued principal g-bundle) over a flat Minkowski spacetime base. Wave functions for the electron field are then sections in this fiber bundle.

To make precise the comparison of geometric data between different spacetime points (gauge covariant derivative), we introduce a connection on this fiber bundle; the electromagnetic vector potential, A_mu (just like the Christoffel symbols/Levi—Civita connection of the tangent bundle in general relativity). Basis vectors/phase can change from place to place either bc. we are using some strange coordinate system (like polar coordinates fx.) or bc. our manifold/bundle is curved (to be precise, the connection is curved). So this connection might have a holonomy/curvature (responsible for geometric Berry phase), just like how spacetime can be curved. In this case, the curvature is caused by the 4-current, just like how spacetime curvature is caused by the stress-energy-momentum tensor. We can take the exterior derivative of this Ehresmann connection 1-form (A_mu), which yields a curvature 2-form, called the electromagnetic/Faraday tensor (or the Riemann curvature tensor in the case of general relativity).

This new field, (A_mu) the vector potential has got its own dynamics. If we derive the equations of motion with the help of the Euler—Lagrange equation, we get back the Lorentz force and Maxwell's equations in the 'classical' case. We can also apply canonical quantization and make the 'A' field values into operators. At low energies, this A field behaves like a quantum harmonic oscillator at each point of spacetime; its energy levels are going to be quantized. The number of quanta in a given frequency mode is what we call the number of photons in that mode (pure numer state/Fock state).

Very good, but it is accurate to say light is composed of photons?

I think not. Light is an electromagnetic wave, and small measurements are quantized. A photon is a measured quanta of light.

You might say, this is like saying a falling tree in the forest does not make a noise if no one listens. Likewise light is not made of photons unless measured.

The difference is that our best theories of trees and sounds say that the tree makes a sound whether anyone listens or not. Our best theories of light do not discretize light until a measurement.

You could say: No, that's wrong, QED uses Feynman diagrams of unobserved particles, including photons.

That is a point, but thinking of light as particles leads to faulty conclusions. QED is really a field theory.

Sean M. Carroll does Woo Podcast

From a Jun 2024 podcast interview:

Ellen came out with a new book at the end of last year called The Mindful Body: Thinking Our Way to Chronic Health, which is about the physiological, the health benefits of mindfulness. And it’s very interesting, she has a lot of studies, right? This is very data-based, and some of the results of these studies are kind of amazing. ... You can think of it as kind of like the placebo effect. You take some pill that really isn’t anything at all and your mind coaxes your body into getting better.

The comments are mostly negative, and a statistician responds:

I don’t think the data are there. To be precise, some relevant data exist, but, from the published papers, I don’t see these data providing good evidence for many of the claims being made.

More generally, statements such as “This is very data-based” and “the data are there” are nothing but empty hype if you can’t point to the actual data and their relation to the (justly) controversial scientific claims. Otherwise, you’re just bullshitting. You could just as well interview someone about the Loch Ness Monster or whatever and say “This is very data-based” over and over and hope your listeners don’t go and check.

I would not be too hard on Carroll, as this is out of his expertise. I just post this as a public service, in case you think that you are getting hard science from the podcast. Carroll must know that the podcast is nonsense, as comments to him explain it.

I do criticize him for many-worlds, as that is in his expertise, and there is no data to support that either.