3 ms·

Everyone calculates. In my mind, "shut up and calculate" refers to a very strong emphasis on calculation and symbolic manipulation to the near or total exclusi

Everyone calculates. In my mind, "shut up and calculate" refers to a very strong emphasis on calculation and symbolic manipulation to the near or total exclusion of conceptual analysis expressed in words and pictures. In particular the "losers" at the 1927 Solvay Congress -- Schrodinger, Einstein, and de Broglie -- seem to be the antithesis of "shut up and calculate" and all contributed very critical elements of quantum theory. Schrodinger found the Schrodinger equation, the differential equation that describes so much correctly, through his approach. This is significant because the operator methodology of Heisenberg and Gottingen either did not work, despite the claims it is equivalent to the Schrodinger equation, or was essentially impossible to use to make predictive calculations. Schrodinger's publication of the Schrodinger equation provided an easy way to calculate results in QM that proved correct using well-know differential equations/calculus methods. For whatever reason, perhaps to keep their research program afloat, the "winners" at the Solvay Congress jettisoned the conceptual underpinnings of Schrodinger's approach and married it to the operator formalism leading to quantum field theory with its intractable infinities and other problems that remain to this day.

marcosdumay 10y ago
I'd say it is strong emphasis on models predictive power, to the exclusion of judging if it improves our understanding of the world. The "shut up" part is more key than the "calculate".
- NumberSix 10y ago
  I am not sure if we disagree here or not. Predictive power has not always trumped understanding as a goal. The original Copernican theory did not work as well as the Ptolemaic model used by astronomers. The Ptolemaic model as it had evolved in the 16th century was extremely complex with many fit parameters and predicted planetary motions relatively well. All of the models shared the incorrect assumption of uniform circular motion and epicycles, both the Copernican, Tyco Brahe's hybrid system, and the traditional Ptolemaic model which by virtue of the thousands of years of effort invested in it -- it arguably dates back to ancient Sumeria -- actually predicted the motions of Mars and other planets best. It was only the addition of elliptical orbits with non-uniform motion by Kepler that resulted in the new model surpassing the Ptolemaic model. In the case of planetary motions, understanding ultimately proved critical. We can predict planetary motions to about 1 in 100,000 accuracy versus about 1 in 100 with the Ptolemaic model of the 16th century.
  - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
    Understanding always trumps simple accuracy, because it defines new mental models which can tested experimentally. I don't think it's about low-hanging fruit so much as the difference between analytical understanding/talent and deep creative insight. Science-as-career has become institutionalised and conservative, and slanted more towards the semi-industrialised production of regular publishable refinements and less towards deep insights. It's correspondingly less likely that a mind like Einstein's would be able to make equivalent contributions today.
  - marcosdumay 10y ago
    Reading your post again, I think we agree. I'd just point that, even tough Schrodinger and de Broglie were pretty much focused on understanding, their contribution to quantum theory was very prediction-based, and not so much understanding based. As I said up there, it's not that they believed that, it is that they only got results when working this way. I took Einstein away from your list, there are always exceptions. What I think is most interesting is that the XX century got an example of each of those "ways of doing science" working. There was probably a "right tool for the job" effect there, as people certainly weren't trying to create a predictive-only theory.
  - daxfohl 10y ago
    I think Kepler was the epitome of "shut up and calculate". Measure the motion of the planets, come up with detailed formulas describing them. Newton transcended that by identifying simple relations and invariants that unfolded to exactly those equations. I'd argue Newton and Einstein are the only two who have transcended "shut up and calculate". In the latter case we otherwise would have patched in Lorentz transforms and stated "just because" like Kepler. In quantum mechanics, I feel like it's still something on a Kepler level, equations "just because", waiting for a more fundamental understanding.
    - NumberSix 10y ago
      I would say certainly not. In Nova Astronomia in which Kepler lays out his discovery, one finds chapters and chapters (originally in Latin) of verbal analysis of what is going on. He did not just find a formula that worked blindly. Rather he envisioned an influence -- either magnetism or something similar to magnetism -- which he calls specie (a Latin term used in magic and mysticism) extending out from the Sun guiding the motions of the planets. This was a clear precursor to the concept of a gravitational field.

marcosdumay 10y ago

I'd say it is strong emphasis on models predictive power, to the exclusion of judging if it improves our understanding of the world. The "shut up" part is more key than the "calculate".

NumberSix 10y ago
I am not sure if we disagree here or not. Predictive power has not always trumped understanding as a goal. The original Copernican theory did not work as well as the Ptolemaic model used by astronomers. The Ptolemaic model as it had evolved in the 16th century was extremely complex with many fit parameters and predicted planetary motions relatively well. All of the models shared the incorrect assumption of uniform circular motion and epicycles, both the Copernican, Tyco Brahe's hybrid system, and the traditional Ptolemaic model which by virtue of the thousands of years of effort invested in it -- it arguably dates back to ancient Sumeria -- actually predicted the motions of Mars and other planets best. It was only the addition of elliptical orbits with non-uniform motion by Kepler that resulted in the new model surpassing the Ptolemaic model. In the case of planetary motions, understanding ultimately proved critical. We can predict planetary motions to about 1 in 100,000 accuracy versus about 1 in 100 with the Ptolemaic model of the 16th century.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  Understanding always trumps simple accuracy, because it defines new mental models which can tested experimentally. I don't think it's about low-hanging fruit so much as the difference between analytical understanding/talent and deep creative insight. Science-as-career has become institutionalised and conservative, and slanted more towards the semi-industrialised production of regular publishable refinements and less towards deep insights. It's correspondingly less likely that a mind like Einstein's would be able to make equivalent contributions today.
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  Reading your post again, I think we agree. I'd just point that, even tough Schrodinger and de Broglie were pretty much focused on understanding, their contribution to quantum theory was very prediction-based, and not so much understanding based. As I said up there, it's not that they believed that, it is that they only got results when working this way. I took Einstein away from your list, there are always exceptions. What I think is most interesting is that the XX century got an example of each of those "ways of doing science" working. There was probably a "right tool for the job" effect there, as people certainly weren't trying to create a predictive-only theory.
- daxfohl 10y ago
  I think Kepler was the epitome of "shut up and calculate". Measure the motion of the planets, come up with detailed formulas describing them. Newton transcended that by identifying simple relations and invariants that unfolded to exactly those equations. I'd argue Newton and Einstein are the only two who have transcended "shut up and calculate". In the latter case we otherwise would have patched in Lorentz transforms and stated "just because" like Kepler. In quantum mechanics, I feel like it's still something on a Kepler level, equations "just because", waiting for a more fundamental understanding.
  - NumberSix 10y ago
    I would say certainly not. In Nova Astronomia in which Kepler lays out his discovery, one finds chapters and chapters (originally in Latin) of verbal analysis of what is going on. He did not just find a formula that worked blindly. Rather he envisioned an influence -- either magnetism or something similar to magnetism -- which he calls specie (a Latin term used in magic and mysticism) extending out from the Sun guiding the motions of the planets. This was a clear precursor to the concept of a gravitational field.