4 ms·

I am usually very weary of this kind of "science for the general public" articles. We all know how the "computer science for the general public" articles sound

by xk_id 14y ago

I am usually very weary of this kind of "science for the general public" articles. We all know how the "computer science for the general public" articles sound like – I usually doubt whether I would get an accurate picture after reading them, if I didn't have a technical background in CS. Since I don't know anything about advanced physics myself, I will not indulge in any "ah, I see" kind of reaction after reading this article. E.g.: I have no idea how accurate my interpretation of the phrase "quantum ether" is; it's like an empty container, and as a non-specialist I could put lots of non-sense in it.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
cottonseed 14y ago
I agree. I'm a mathematician working in quantum topology, and this article seems to equal parts vague and incoherent. As for this "Wow! Topology impacts physics! Useful for the first time!" is total bullshit. The interaction between topology and physics goes back a century, or centuries. The work of Poincare, the father of modern topology, for example, was motivated by studying PDEs and the behavior of dynamical systems. More spectacular is the work of the last 30 years, starting with the work of Donaldson in the 80s, and later work by Witten, between gauge theory (the mathematical formalism of the standard model) and the topology of 4-dimensional spaces. It is beautiful story, much like the origins of calculus or the application of ideas from differential geometry in the foundations of general relativity.
- runT1ME 14y ago
  Random question, is category theory helpful in working out equations with quantum topology?
  - cottonseed 14y ago
    Short answer: Yes. Long answer: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "working out equations". Category theory is useful. Categories were introduced by Eilenberg and MacLane to formalize certain structures were studying in the context of algebraic topology (homology, cohomology and homotopy are all functors from topological to algebraic categories, and there are lots of examples of natural transformations on these functors). Algebraic topology is a foundation for quantum/low-dimensional topology, so categories naturally arise in using the tools from algebraic topology. In quantum topology, many of the natural invariants one studies are in some sense TQFTs: Topological Quantum Field Theories. The modern formulation of TQFTs is due to Atiyah. In this formulation, a TQFT is a functor from a certain kind of topological category called a cobordism category (in analogy with physics, one can think of the objects as spacetimes and the morphisms as spacetime evolution) to certain algebraic categories (which one can think of as quantum state spaces and evolution operators). These TQFTs are often not just functors, but n-functors: the categories in question are not just regular categories, but higher categories or infinity categories.
aristus 14y ago
Going off-topic, what would a good "computer science for the general public" article look like to you? I imagine it would not be about something new, but something well-established and how it relates to the real world. Eg, the principles of process control as applied to logistics.
- xk_id 14y ago
  I say the whole dichotomy between the day-to-day vocabulary and technical/scientific vocabularies should be dropped altogether. This dichotomy is responsible for the cliquey attitude of scientists on one end; the treatment of sciences as esoteric by the laymen on the other end; the labelling of science enthusiasts as "hipsters"; etc. All of which is ridiculous. Today, the life conditions of the layman are given by modern sciences, but he insists in using an antiquated vocabulary in speaking about his experiences and the world. Hence some people strongly feel in terms of "computer wizard" instead of "computer literate"; "static matter" instead of "processes"; etc. We really should stop divorcing sciences from our day-to-day life, vocabularies and feelings; it's unnatural what is going on. We look like cavemen with mobile phones, and more than half a century after the formulation of cybernetics, our daily epistemologies are still largely Aristotelian! So a well written scientific article for the general public would avoid translating the scientific discoveries into the antiquated terms. "Quantum ether"? What a heroic way to crap on the enormous shift from Newton's "fundamental emptiness" to Einstein's "fundamental plenum". Similarly for CS articles, careless translations should be avoided; instead, we should borrow in our common speaking as much as possible from scientific vocabularies, and make those terms fundamental: they serve and represent us much, much better, because they package the most up-to-date results of our enquires into the structure of the world. Sciences give us factors of sanity, let's not waste them. Edit: cosmetics.
  - aristus 14y ago
    Ah, but you'd have to spend a few hundred words explaining "plenum". I have no clue what that is, and I'd need at the very least a simple analogy. Science writing can lose clarity in the pursuit of concision and precision.

by xk_id 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

cottonseed 14y ago

I agree. I'm a mathematician working in quantum topology, and this article seems to equal parts vague and incoherent. As for this "Wow! Topology impacts physics! Useful for the first time!" is total bullshit. The interaction between topology and physics goes back a century, or centuries. The work of Poincare, the father of modern topology, for example, was motivated by studying PDEs and the behavior of dynamical systems. More spectacular is the work of the last 30 years, starting with the work of Donaldson in the 80s, and later work by Witten, between gauge theory (the mathematical formalism of the standard model) and the topology of 4-dimensional spaces. It is beautiful story, much like the origins of calculus or the application of ideas from differential geometry in the foundations of general relativity.

runT1ME 14y ago
Random question, is category theory helpful in working out equations with quantum topology?
- cottonseed 14y ago
  Short answer: Yes. Long answer: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "working out equations". Category theory is useful. Categories were introduced by Eilenberg and MacLane to formalize certain structures were studying in the context of algebraic topology (homology, cohomology and homotopy are all functors from topological to algebraic categories, and there are lots of examples of natural transformations on these functors). Algebraic topology is a foundation for quantum/low-dimensional topology, so categories naturally arise in using the tools from algebraic topology. In quantum topology, many of the natural invariants one studies are in some sense TQFTs: Topological Quantum Field Theories. The modern formulation of TQFTs is due to Atiyah. In this formulation, a TQFT is a functor from a certain kind of topological category called a cobordism category (in analogy with physics, one can think of the objects as spacetimes and the morphisms as spacetime evolution) to certain algebraic categories (which one can think of as quantum state spaces and evolution operators). These TQFTs are often not just functors, but n-functors: the categories in question are not just regular categories, but higher categories or infinity categories.

aristus 14y ago

Going off-topic, what would a good "computer science for the general public" article look like to you? I imagine it would not be about something new, but something well-established and how it relates to the real world. Eg, the principles of process control as applied to logistics.

xk_id 14y ago
I say the whole dichotomy between the day-to-day vocabulary and technical/scientific vocabularies should be dropped altogether. This dichotomy is responsible for the cliquey attitude of scientists on one end; the treatment of sciences as esoteric by the laymen on the other end; the labelling of science enthusiasts as "hipsters"; etc. All of which is ridiculous. Today, the life conditions of the layman are given by modern sciences, but he insists in using an antiquated vocabulary in speaking about his experiences and the world. Hence some people strongly feel in terms of "computer wizard" instead of "computer literate"; "static matter" instead of "processes"; etc. We really should stop divorcing sciences from our day-to-day life, vocabularies and feelings; it's unnatural what is going on. We look like cavemen with mobile phones, and more than half a century after the formulation of cybernetics, our daily epistemologies are still largely Aristotelian! So a well written scientific article for the general public would avoid translating the scientific discoveries into the antiquated terms. "Quantum ether"? What a heroic way to crap on the enormous shift from Newton's "fundamental emptiness" to Einstein's "fundamental plenum". Similarly for CS articles, careless translations should be avoided; instead, we should borrow in our common speaking as much as possible from scientific vocabularies, and make those terms fundamental: they serve and represent us much, much better, because they package the most up-to-date results of our enquires into the structure of the world. Sciences give us factors of sanity, let's not waste them. Edit: cosmetics.
- aristus 14y ago
  Ah, but you'd have to spend a few hundred words explaining "plenum". I have no clue what that is, and I'd need at the very least a simple analogy. Science writing can lose clarity in the pursuit of concision and precision.