Carver Mead: ‘A bunch of big egos’ are strangling science
February 22, 2013
(Credit: Dick Lyon/Wikimedia Commons)
ISSCC Microelectronics pioneer, Caltech professor emeritus, and all-around smart guy Carver Mead believes that the scientific revolution that began with the discovery of special relativity and quantum mechanics has stalled, and that it’s up to us to kickstart it, The Register reports.
“A bunch of big egos got in the way,” he told his audience of 3,000-plus chipheads at the International Soild-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC) in San Francisco on Monday.
Much more work needs to be done to restart that revolution, Mead said, with the goal of explaining in an intuitive way how all matter in the universe relates to and affects all other matter, and how to explore those interrelationships in a way that isn’t “buried in enormous piles of obscure mathematics.”
(More)
Comments (43)
by Andre Ratel
While reading this article, I was reminded that, a few months ago, I bought the book
Carver A. Mead
Collective electrodynamics
-= Quantum foundations of electromagnetism
(MIT Press, 2000)
ISBN: 978-0-262-63260-7
Softcover, xxiii, 135 pages, 23 cm high, 1 cm thick
From the back cover:
“In this book Carver Mead offers a radically new approach to the standard problems of electromagnetic theory. Motivated by the belief that the goal of scientific research should be the simplification and unification of knowledge, he describes a new way of doing electrodynamics—collective electrodynamics—that does not rely on Maxwell’s equations, but rather uses the quantum nature of matter as its sole basis. Collective electrodynamics is a way of looking at how electrons interact, based on experiments that tell us about the electrons directly. (As Mead points out, Maxwell had no access to these experiments.)”
For more details:
http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/collective-electrodynamics
by Editor
Cool, I’ve been hoping to get time to read that. How is it?
by Andre Ratel
I should have mentioned that I have not read the book yet. The day I bought it, I just got through the Personal Preface in which Mead relates some discussions he had with Feynman.
What intrigued me was his affirmation that the vector potential and the scalar potential were, in a way, “more real” than the E and B fields. I always thought the opposite and felt that the potentials were merely math concepts being introduced to simplify the calculations. There is also the annoying arbitrariness in the choice of gauge. On the other hand, the E-field is the electric force per unit charge and the B-field the magnetic force per unit charge and per unit velocity. What could be more tangible than these?
It it true that, when working with 4-vector formalism, the 4-vector potential A might be easier to work with than the electromagnetic field tensor F. But if we want to really understand what is going on physically, we need to return to 3-vector formalism.
Another quantity that I consider very concrete is the Poyting vector S which gives the distribution in space of the mass-energy and momentum of the electromagnetic field. The concept is, however, not listed in
the Index.
What I find interesting about the S-field is that it plays for the EM field a role similar to the one played by the probability density of quantum mechanics. Could we use this as a bridge between the classical picture of an EM wave and the quantum picture of a flow of photons being governed by a probability wave? This might lead to some useful insights.
Anyway, I bought the book to see what, according to the author, was so special about the potentials but then I started working on some other project. In fact, I returned to some unfinished work I had begun in 1981. (No doubt, I really need a brain upgrade. :-)
Sorry, I cannot give more info but a Google search lead me to the
following article:
<<>>
Furthermore, Part I of the book is also freely available (in pdf form) as an article published in
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. , Vol. 94, pp. 6013–6018, June 1997
The URL is:
http://www.pnas.org/search?fulltext=Mead%2C+Carver&submit=yes&x=13&y=10
by Andre Ratel
For some reason, the text that I had included within angular brackets has been removed by the server. It might have been treated as some html command.
The text was
http://www.math.umb.edu/~sp/mead.pdf
[PDF article]
Review by Stephen Parrott of Collective Electrodynamics by …
Jul 26, 2006 – Collective Electrodynamics by. Carver A. Mead. This is an unusual book and not an easy one to review. Perhaps the best starting
place is the …
…
by Tal
there needs to be a discussion at some point in the near future about the serious changes coming to society because of pending changes in the 3d printing industry, biological printing of body parts first and food later will seriously change the way we look at our life.
the earlier comment made about our 5000 years of relatively catastrophe free existence being over couldn’t be more right.
by following this site and several others which are mentioned here as well it is an inescapable conclusion that every social structure and financial system in existence today are going to crash and stall very soon, and we need to figure out a different way to manage things.
resource based economy seems one way to start the discussion.
the other major issue is simply open mindedness which is simply lacking every where on earth.
ever since I heard about the concept of the Singularity I’ve tried talking to as many people as i can about the implications and the reaction always split to two extremes, with a really scary ration, more then two thirds were scared of the idea and thought of it as a sort of Pandora `s box.
this is something that if it is not discussed thoroughly by good PR can really end badly for us all, only one of the Sci-Fi`s that I know of even came close to making these assumptions and the implication, Ghost in the Shell.
by NakedApe
I find it disheartening to see scientific progress steadily being drowned in a sea of religious, superstitious idiocy. This has now been going on for thousands of years! The UN is actually pondering laws against blasphemy? Have they never heard of the concepts of freedom of thought and speech? How can we progress if we are constantly being dragged back by billions of people who believe in nonsense and try to convince others of the truthfulness of their views by blowing them to smithereens? Oh, let’s go to Mars and to the stars while we increasingly pander to religious stupidity? Methinks that, instead of Mars, we may well be heading for another, global, Dark Ages! It’s beyond my pitiful understanding why Anthropology 101 isn’t a required subject for every child on Earth by grade 9. How can anyone NOT be interested in who we are, as a species, and where we come from — from a scientific point of view? Of course, politicians, and religious elites, just love to keep the people ignorant and wallowing in superstitions. It keeps the little people guessing and ensures that the politicians get elected by spouting religious gibberish. Let’s all “RESPECT” the world’s great religions so they can keep us in ignorance, stupidity, endless conflict and general EVIL for millennia to come. The stupid, uneducated or misguided multitudes are the REAL drag on scientific progress. I fear that this “clever” ape may well be another evolutionary experiment about to go horribly wrong. (Hope I am wrong.)
by Warwick
A breath of fresh air
by 4science
I would love for students to believe that you don’t have to consider yourself “elite” to do science and you can do science without being persecuted for mistakes. I like how one guy from MIT put it (not exact): “Unfortunately, one has to die to make any progress in this field.”
by SmartAndSober
Our society is full of Rubes-Goldberg-ish inefficiencies.
Fix it (for the sake of science).
by SmartAndSober
BTW, for everyone with the IQ and enthrusiasm for high-end science/tech research but not the money, try Prof Hugo deGaris’s totally Free Youtube lectures! (on math/phys/compsci)
http://profhugodegaris.wordpress.com/mathphysics-lectures/
Please join the coming Sci/Tech Education Revolution Now.
by GAUSS
Politics run deep in academia. This is not news.
by GAUSS
*runs
by Cloudswrest
I’ve had the exact same thoughts as Mead. General Relativity is not “wrong” in the sense that it produces incorrect results, but it doesn’t explain anything. Why is the speed of light constant? Why does mass curve spacetime? How does an electron’s charge arise, and why does it have the value it does? A physics professor I had as an undergraduate derisively referred to such questions as “philosophy” and not “physics”.
by PK
Sure I agree that it’s always nice for more people to ask the big questions. But I don’t see how anyone following this site and others like it could come to the conclusion that science is being “strangled”. The amount of collaboration between top minds is incredibe! Just reading weekly about the great leaps in undderstanding superconductivity at phys.org is inspiring. It just seems to me that profound discoveries are now much more challenging to acheive.
by Nyk
Peter Thiel, I believe, recently argued that it well may be the case that we have picked all of the easy, low-hanging fruit in science. If that is indeed the case, the bottleneck may lie in the smaller and smaller number of people with the enormous intelligence required to not only stand on the shoulders of giants, but to look beyond. Genetics is of course slowly progressing to the point where we can fix that, but unfortunately it will never be applied on national scales in the West because of the Liberal belief in the human brain as a blank slate and the idea that we all have equal potential regardless of our genes. The real hope lies with the Chinese BGI institute and their research into the genetics of human intelligence.
by Dirk Bruere
Pretty much all of the eggs over the past few decades have been put in the String Theory basket. Decades wasted if it turns out to be wrong.
by Bob
A Squeaky gear gets the oil and the louder mouth gets heard. In both cases it is he that does the oiling or he that does the listening that is the issue, not the gear or the mouth. The technique that works will be used so it behooves all of us to not enable undesirable techniques. Authority is only an authority when we empower as such.
by hal
reading all of Richard Feynman’s published work intended for the “lay” mind, like mine, speaks to this matter in a cogent manner. not unlike a Shakespearean play. it is what it is. this “Dilbert” environment just makes a space for the titans to ride a moonbeam in our directions. am thankful for this imperfect life that allows the “Ray Kurzweils” to nudge the pile of protoplasm in a “good” direction.
by Camaxtli
I hope he attracts a huge following of thoughtful, creative physicists. The heirarchies and bullies of the scientific world hold back progress, not only in physics, but in other scientific fields. It seems that those with great political skills, but mediocre science skills end up running the show while the most brilliant, but the more reserved or non-political or confrontational, unwilling to play those games, end up having their work smothered. I’m sure a lot of us can relate to this phenomenon in our own professions.
by Stephen
Yes, it’s true in many, if not all, professions. I agree with Camaxtli. It’s a current in our culture that interferes with exposing the best work. Certainly, this is true in the arts. How do we address a problem like this? It’s mind boggling to contemplate.
by Editor
Question authority.
by Camaxtli
That takes a certain personality, a certain bravery. And it has consequences and often doesn’t end well. I believe there are many scientists, brilliant ones, who just want to do science. They are nice, retiring people who aren’t cut out for the stress and trouble that can come with challenging powers that be, especially if it would interrupt their work or destroy a career, remove access to the funds and equipment they need to pursue their research.
That’s why its great to have someone like Mead speak out like this. That’s what can get movements started and help us get over this archaic stagnation fundamental physics seems to be stuck in.
by Rob
All it takes is guts. Since when did complicit silence become the norm? That’s the wonderful thing about the Internet revolution. Because it can reach most of the world’s population and is resistant to censorship, it’s hard for traditional methods of keeping people in line and quiet more difficult. Plus there are indications that the education market is in a bubble, which should further erode the lock academics have put on knowledge.
by Camaxtli
When did complicit silence become the norm? Jeez, I don’t know, for the length of human existence maybe? Being otherwise has been the exception for most of our existence. We’re a naturally social species that organizes into groups and hierarchies, we’re not naturally egalitarian if observation of the wide range of human societies is any indication. We’re hunter-gatherers with a thin veneer of civilization and rationality.
You say “all it takes is guts”, but easier said than done. Slogans are one thing, action is something different. What you say about the Internet helps. But for revolutions to happen, you usually have a few brave people with convictions and courage and the less brave follow on behind. People are how they are, some people are braver than others, some have more guts than others.
by SmartAndSober
” … People are how they are, some people are braver than others, some have more guts than others.”
Everything about human behavior has physical cause. Do we need Genetically Engineered (for more guts) scientists, or drugs to make you braver? I am serious with this proposal.
by Nyk
James Watson, the guy who won the Nobel for discovering DNA, has guts. He actually said that all aid poured into Africa won’t make a difference because it comes from the assumption that Blacks have the same kind of intelligence as Whites. He was promptly denounced as racist, slandered in the most shameful of ways, and eventually forced to resign and retire. You’d think his previous achievements would have earned him the right for people to respectfully hear him out on what he has to say, even if they disagree.
So this story pretty much shows that guts are not enough. It takes political power and power over the means of propaganda (the media) to do that. If the people believe that the world must work in a certain ideal way, but an examination of reality reveals ugly truths that challenge and rattle one’s entrenched worldview, the default human behavior is to deny the evidence and pretend it doesn’t exist. We need look no further than Alfred Wegener’s theory of Plate Tectonics, which was ridiculed to no end by the scientific establishment of the time, despite the fact that any child looking on a map could see that South America and Africa fit together like puzzle pieces and the indeed may have well been one continent in the past.
The tragedy of our species is that scientifically-minded persons are seldom interested in gaining political power. I believe Plato had it right all along: there is no ruler better than a Philosopher-King.
by Bri
There was an article recently where some impoverished Ethiopian children were given iPads with disabled cameras and no tutorials as on how to use the devices. Very quickly they worked together and figured them out. I respectfully think your assumption on intelligence is flawed. If we implemented policies in accordance to your philosophy it would tend to make it a self fufilling prophecy. Instead we have implemented the a converse policy. A closer examination of the facts would reveal that there is very little differences between the different races. It’s hard to know what is true wisdom. As I try to grapple with the question I see it as a perspective that can be very different under different circumstances. I’ve often joked when talking about politics that the only system of governance that I believe in is the Divine right of kings, and as soon as god comes down and day’s this is the guy to follow, then I’ll follow them. I don’t question authority or group think. I question everything including myself. I think it’s a healthier attitude. It leaves you open to change.
by Jackus
You are right, Bri. In this Cornucopian Era (of especially information technology), I believe that giving everyone augments will be a better option than being selective and giving tech only to the high-IQed ones.
As Eliezer Yudkowsky said: “When you think of intelligence, do not think of Einstein as opposed to village idiots. Think of humans as opposed to chimpanzees.” All human beings are worth saving and augmenting.
by Bri
His philosophy is an outdated view of conquest and subjugation. It was valuable in past eras. At this point we are about to go into an era similar to the precambrian. We will broaden and diversify into innumerable areas. Every human has potential. What they do with it is their decission. In even as little as one hundred years it will be hard to define what it is to be human in the same way that we think of human today.
by Jackus
” … conquest and subjugation.”
And “pogrom” those you fail to conquer.
by Bri
@Editor: any tatoo’s, piercings, or alternate style of clothing we don’t know about? Ride a motor cycle?
by Editor
Question group mind.
by Marcos Marin
The printing press has been around for a while. Now it’s next to free publishing anything and even finding the resources you need.
But if you still want “big recognition” “big bucks” “big labs” “big publishers” ” big books” (insert spam joke here), it’s STILL ego and the bigger ego WILL win.
by Camaxtli
You know, I think you are sadly right in the majority of cases. I’ve often thought of what amazing works of fiction and non-fiction could exist if the most brilliant and focused came equipped with the most self-confidence and social skills automatically.
Find those genes and make the latter’s expression conditional upon the former in a direct ratio!
by Marcos Marin
Unfortunately yes. I’m more than sadly right in the majority of cases. (to which term more applies you decide, maybe you can also increase your odds)
But in this case social skills are definitely not needed and low self-confidence may actually lead to the right solution.
Ever heard of “no good deed will go unpunished”?
There mere act of attaching your little name to the little idea your little ego believes to own is akin to donating to charity while feeling how such a noble spirit you are, “publishing” the act could not be worse! See how true altruism is next to impossible? Not even YOU can know you did it ;-) now YOU better figure out how or YOU WILL BE punished.
Anyway, those “genes” are probably mutually exclusive in humans anyway ;-) temptation is too hard for them to resist even if such meager power was to be granted. Hedonism would prevent any enduring enough effort. Ultimately destroying themselves… ohwait…
by SmartAndSober
“… most self-confidence and social skills ”
Try shamelessness.
You remind me of some Indian spiritual “gurus” and Chinese tai-chi/healing practitioners claiming their practices as science-compatible or even beyond science.
Their social skills seem quite good.
by Klaatu
Golly, you wouldn’t be talking about climate science would you?
Yup, ah remember that non-scientist fella Issac Assimov saying he
was late to global warming…, in the late eighties. Looks like someone
gave the ok signal b/c a bunch of libertarians have recently switched
from skeptics to believers. How radical. Only twenty years late. Were
they in on the joke all along or did they really switch?
by A4i
Well, there was vast experimental data, in the late 18 century that there are particles , smaller than atoms and time was non absolute. So somebody connected all the dots and made proper sense of all that experimental data available at the moment. Einstein didn’t perform the experiments. Others did, he just made sense of the data. Nowadays there is secrecy , luck of funding and luck of educated people, who may connect the dots. 150 yeas ago somebody invented the electron gun, even before the concept of electron was established. Then he pointed that gun to a target and produced X-rays. Roentgen just named that rays, he didn’t invented them. What we need is somebody to do the hard work and really invent something genuine new, that is not understandable at the present moment. Others will come and explain what is really going on. That is the easiest part.
by anon
“What we need is somebody to do the hard work and really invent something genuine new, that is not understandable at the present moment. Others will come and explain what is really going on. That is the easiest part.”
That’s exactly what needs to happen. And that means doing experiments, wild, crazy, it’s-never-going-to-work, you’ll-never-get-funding experiments.
How about we start with the banking industry. They’ve got the funds. Just look at their assets. Thousands and thousands of billions.
Every country in the world makes a law that if you’re part of the financial industry (siphoning money from the people of the world to your coffers) you are subject to science tax. Billions and billions of unused (its only function making them richer) money lie in the vaults of banks.
It’s in everyone’s interest – especially the super rich, who might/would get to enjoy the benefits first – that they be released for the use of science.
by Mitchell
We better scare the stubbornness out if them soon. Our 5000 years free of catastrophe has expired. Without freedom to develop rapidly electricity as a source we will not survive the next visit of planetary collisions mythology blamed on the gods. See The Saturn Theory, Velikovsky, et.al., Natural Philosophy Alliance, Thunderbolts.info, Electric Universe. -Mitch
by SmartAndSober
Keyword: Literature Mining.
by Bri
A bunch of big egos…….. Indeed. Ideas are no welcome if they undermine a persons social status. Your position determines your ability to generate wealth. It’s a cult of personality. VIKKI won’t have an ego, but ViKKI might not like the interference of human ego. We could easily be marginalized by a superior AI if we try and play top of the hill.
by Dennis R.
It’s not merely a cult of personality, it’s a culture of ownership and control. Patents and copyright allow individuals and/or corporations to limit access to ideas, materials, and processes. And there is talk of limiting internet access to people who are accused of pirating. And it’s often done in the name of keeping us “safe.” And the controls become more draconian.