Hi rats,
Very often, people come and tell me*: “Rat, you are so
magnificent! Here you are, a former magician-actor-tap dancer-model-ninja-vampire-master
of the universe-Madonna. How come that someone with your obvious talents and
–ehem!- sexy muscular body is wasting his time in foundational research? (blink,
blink)”.
*Approximate reconstruction.
The answer is complicated. I think I’m not surprising anyone
when I say that nowadays Foundations of Physics raises the same expectations as a new star trek movie. For most, Foundations is synonym of mediocre results,
low-level mathematics and endless pedantic discussions. And it is true: most works
in Foundations (and even whole conferences!) are just like that. One has to dig
very, very deep to find that precious gem that makes everything worth it.
In this post, I will try to summarize the good and bad
aspects of the field. That way, independently of what you choose to make of
your scientific careers, you'll know what you can
expect, or what you'll be missing.
Let's start with the cons: working in Foundations sucks when…
1) … someone proposes a lame semi-classical model for photon polarization that actually reduces to the definition of quantum separability
when one tries to make physical sense of it. However, since the author holds a Nobel Prize for completely unrelated research,
the “discovery” soon becomes a popular topic in Foundations that
no amount of logical arguments can kill. Bravo!
A different take on this story, advocated
in this note, is that the photon model may be, in fact, scientifically
sound. When the laureate defines a model inconsistent with the notion that post-selection
is a type of preparation, he’s not making a gross mistake: he’s proving his creative
genius by "freeing himself" from this traditionally held assumption*. And when
the laureate violently bumps his head against the floor, he’s not stumbling and falling: he’s estimating
the density of concrete in public pavements.
*Indeed, how could I be so blind!? Why didn’t I consider the possibility that, after measuring a photon, the universe disappears, or all other photons turn into Toblerone
bars?
2) … for the third time, the John Stewart Bell Prize, which is awarded “for significant contributions first published in the [last] 6 years” and “is not intended as a "lifetime achievement" award” (check the rules), goes to senior group leaders.
2) … for the third time, the John Stewart Bell Prize, which is awarded “for significant contributions first published in the [last] 6 years” and “is not intended as a "lifetime achievement" award” (check the rules), goes to senior group leaders.
Dear committee members: Adán Cabello will renege on contextuality
before you award the prize to a mere postdoc, so
stop giving false hopes to junior researchers. Be honest, remove the six-year requirement from the
description of the Prize and give it to
Tsirelson. God knows that, if someone deserves the John Stewart Bell Prize, that is Boris Tsirelson, the man who
invented quantum Bell inequalities. Like Bell, he had a deep vision
that translated into breakthrough results. And, like Bell, his work was
largely ignored by the Physics community at the time.
Rats, I say we owe Boris Tsirelson big time: a prize for Tsirelson, now!!
 |
| The John Stewart Bell Prize committee, deciding the fate of a postdoc nominee. |
3) … people from serious* fields advance a foundational
topic by an epsilon (OK, two epsilons), get their results published in Nature and everybody
wets their pants. Meanwhile, all other relevant contributions rot.
*Here by “serious” I mean “socially acclaimed”. If you believe
that quantum computer science is objectively serious, stop random pedestrians on the street
and try to explain them why quantum complexity classes are much more important
than, say, epistemic models. If they try to escape, hit them on the head with
your gun**.
**You don’t have a gun!? Then, how do you get people to cite
your work at introductions and review papers?
4) … two authors publish three times essentially the
same result (and I'm not counting the review!).
Why stop there? From this blog I want to propose Colbeck and Renner new ideas to spread their message:
- “Quantum mechanics is complete”, the coloring book (it’s already colored), and “Quantum mechanics is complete”, the jigsaw puzzle (one piece may be missing).
- “nIv'e', yu'egh Qap, tugh Qo' (the wave function exists, soon you won’t)”, the Klingon Opera.
- “Who moved my local part?”, the best-selling book that has helped millions find their true nonlocal selves and now it can help you, too!
- “The Texas chain Bell inequality”, the independent motion picture directed by Lars von Trier, with Nicole Kidman as the statistical distance and Philip Seymour Hoffman as the random variable Z. All the characters are trapped between the pages of a prestigious journal!
Seriously, does it make sense to conduct Wheeler’s
delayed-choice experiment in the 21st century? In the same line, why
not measure the speed of aether, or the weight of a soul?
 |
| Experimental demonstration that the pagan god Mawu does not manifest when the pentacle is open. Did Mawu know in advance that we were going to open the pentacle? To appear in Nature Communications. |
All right, enough cons for today.
Let's hear the pros: working in Foundations rocks because…
1) … contrary to absurd claims, there IS a
measurement problem*.
*The problem is to explain why measurements return a single
outcome, not why we don’t see macroscopic superpositions. Decoherence advocates,
cut the crap: you’re not advancing the problem at all!
*Electroshock, please.
3) … there is room for imagination.
OK, rats, this has been all. I hope that this post has inspired you to do something productive, like
Yours truly,
Schroedinger’s Rat
