DSKla: Conversations with myself, aloud in public places

[DSKla]

Of course, I didn't mean that we had any control over subatomic particles just by looking at them, but it's very interesting with regards to how the universe might work. Just because a photon changes behavior under observation doesn't necessarily mean that a carbon atom does the same. The two most fascinating things about this experiment to me are 1) the fact that the future might influence the present, or that time as we see it might not paint an accurate picture of the "time" on which the universe operates. And 2) if a particle changes under observation, what counts as an "observation"? Observation by life, even indirectly through lasers? The reason that one strikes me is that in most eastern meditation traditions, it's pointed out time and again that there is no self or observer, and that sensations cannot observe one another (which is its own philosophical can of worms). I find that interesting mainly because I have no idea what to make of it. Maybe "exert an influence on x, or have influence exerted onto y by x" might be what we're talking about when we use the word observe? Is "interact" more accurate?

No clue, I have just always been fascinated by anything having to do with the way the universe operates. Thanks for clarifying about quantum mechanics, Jacob. I was hoping you'd spot it and give your take when I posted the link.

[Lucky_Vik]

Hi, I know they've done the double slit experiment with not just photons but neutrons and even small molecules and they have gotten the same result.

I like reading about this sort of stuff and my understanding is that everything is a wave whether photon, neutron or a whole molecule and only when we interact with it 'observation eg shoot light at it or laser (photons) does it ' 'collapse' into a 'particle'.

[DSKla]

Thanks, Vik. My understanding of physics is limited to whatever a few articles tell me, so that's a helpful clarification.

[jacob]

I think the wave-particle duality viewpoint creates more confusion than it helps. It's a historical artifact from how quantum physics was developed trying to fit square pegs into round holes(*). Waves and particles are classical concepts and unfortunately those concepts are attached to experiments which reinforces they idea... but just because something passes the duck test doesn't make it a duck.

(*) Unfortunately, a lot of physics education is like that: "You know what you learned last week is completely wrong. Here's a better way of seeing it."

A bad analogy would be to say that from orbit, Earth is a blue-white disc but once we teleport to the surface it collapses into a green-brown plane. But really, it is just a big sphere and if you think of Earth like that, all the mysterious behavior vanishes.

A better (more coherent or self-consistent) interpretation (the quantum field theory world) would be to say that there's a photon quantum field, an electron quantum field, a neutron quantum field, etc. Each of these quantum fields interact with themselves and sometimes with each other.

All these interactions obey field equations. Each valid solution to these field equations is weighed probabilistically and from this we can compute observations.

It's when we interpret (ascribe macroscopic qualities) these solutions that things get weird.

For example ...

Suppose we have an electron coming in from the left. A time t1 it hits a field F1 (interacts with a photon emitted from another electron, say) and gets scattered back to the left. A time t2 it hits a field F2 and gets scatted back to the right. Then it's measured sometime later on.

Now, an equally valid solution (to the field equations) would be the following. It comes in from the left again. At t2 it hits F1. The electron is then transformed into a positron(its antiparticle) and travels backwards in time until it hits F2 at t1 where it's transformed into an electron again and is scattered back to the left and measured some time later on.

Now the second example sounds philosophically bizarre ... however what goes on at the theory level is more or less just two minuses that cancel each other out and become a plus. Hence, there's not necessarily a transformation nor necessarily any backward time travel. Rather, it's just OUR INTERPRETATION that the "electron" behaved AS IF it did that.

A macroscopic observer would only see the electron coming in from the left, something happening between t1 and t2 in the space between F1 and F2, but not sure what because it's too fast and close to tell, and then the electron coming out from the left sometime later perhaps with slightly different properties (e.g. different spin direction).

In short, if we weren't trying to typecast the equations into a classical concepts such as "wave", "time", "forward", "particle", ... this stuff wouldn't be that weird. It's as pedestrian as x^2=4 => x=+2 OR x=-2.---But since we're used to thinking in terms of positive solutions only, we think of the negative -2 solution as distinctly and intuitively strange.

Note that I kept the classical concept of "electron" as it was a real object.

String theory and to some extent the standard model does away with this "typecasting" too.

[DSKla]

Thanks, Jacob. I think that helps, though I'll definitely reread it a few times to synthesize it all.

[jacob]

If you like this stuff and know matrix algebra and how to add complex numbers, I highly recommend R.I.G. Hughes's book on QM.

Held og lykke med den

[Lucky_Vik]

Thanks Jacob, I also appreciate the explanation. I get that quantum mechanics (I think I get it anyway) is just a mathematical description and not necessarily the way things are. I know for phycisists doing experiments its 'good enough' but I am interested in the way things might really be. I haven't found a good explanation of what a 'field' is. Sounds to me like all space is made up of these 'fields' which I think is kind of hilarious because it's basically bringing us back to the vacuum of space not being empty after all but instead being made up of these 'fields' which is back to the old notion of the 'ether'. Not sure if this is your cup of tea Jacob but it would be great if you could use your awesome explanation skills to write an article (or a book?) explaining what all this stuff means.

[jacob]

I have been thinking about writing such stuff for the past 15 years; even made a few attempts. Not because I think I'm particularly good at it but because there's an unfortunate vacuum between technically complex textbooks and dumbed down popular science books which I think needs to be filled---and "if not me, then who?" BTW this didn't use to be so. There were some extraordinarily well written popularizations for the "intelligent layman" from about 100 years ago. Of course, that won't help when it comes to quantum mechanics and beyond.

A field is a (mental?) concept that assigns a value to each point in space and time. If the field assigns a single number, it is a scalar field. If it assigns a direction, it is a vector field. You can also assign more complex mathematical objects to each point in space and time, e.g. a tensor field.

For example, a magnetic field is unique described by a set of three numbers at each point in space and time. You can write these as (M_x, M_y, M_z)(x,y,z,t) but you could also write them in spherical coordinates as a magnitude and two angles. Both descriptions are mathematically equivalent and in either case, you can measure this field directly, e.g. with a compass or by pouring iron dust on a piece of paper. The electric field is another example of a vector field that can be measured directly (e.g. by how much the hair on your head is standing up during a thunderstorm). Electric potential is a scalar field that can not be measured directly but it's a very useful concept. Is the electric field potential real? In my opinion, it isn't. However, the electric and the magnetic fields are. Of course this is all rather subjective and just a matter of where you draw the line. Is an electron real? Or is it just a model that describes your measurements well?

In any case, here's what's going on in the world of fields.

The magnetic field can be described with 3 numbers at each point. Ditto the electric field. Hence we can describe both with 6 numbers for each point in space and time, e.g. E_x(x,y,z,t), E_y(x,y,z,t), .... M_z(x,y,z,t).

It was realized already in the 19th century that the electric and the magnetic field are deeply related. This culminated in the Maxwell equations that show the exact relation. The same equations also show that electric and magnetic forces are mediated by photons. (If you set up a wave equation using the Maxwell equations, you get that the wave travels at light speed.) However, photons can be uniquely described by a field using only two numbers (frequency and polarization, alternatively quantum number and spin).

IOW, you have two fields (E and M) that are characterized by three numbers each, so six total; that are somehow related to each other (with the Maxwell equations); and that are connected or mediated via photons that are characterized by only two numbers.

Can we explain observed magnetic and electric behavior in a more unifying, albeit also more technically complicated, manner which doesn't require two (E, M) fields, and six (3+3) numbers to explain the two observables of the photon? Yes, we can.

Ideally, we'd want a new theory that instead of all the Maxwell equations and fields, etc. above only require two numbers, namely the photons we see. It turns out that this is rather hard.

However, it turns out that we can postulate a field that has 4 numbers and then impose a symmetry on these numbers that reduces the four down to the two we observe. We're sort of saying that the all electric and magnetic phenomena behaves AS IF there was a field of 4 numbers that obeys a certain symmetry resulting in us only being able to see the 2 numbers we do.

One way to understand how this works is to think of points on the surface of a sphere. These points can be described by a field (x,y,z) or alternatively (radius, latitude, longitude). If the sphere was rotationally symmetric, we'd only need 1 number to describe a point, namely the radius. Because we wouldn't be able tell the points apart if we rotated it. So in this case, we might think the three numbers as being convenient (for mathematical reasons); then imposing rotational symmetry; which brings us down to one number which is exactly what we measure. Does this "trickery" make sense?

Now suppose you had a field of four numbers that at each point was locally symmetric in this manner. Then at each point, you reduce these four numbers down to two observables.

This is exactly what's going on in the standard model description of electromagnetics (<- note, now one field, not two). In this case, the symmetry is not rotational in the geometric sense, but a rotation in the complex plane of all vectors with unit length 1, aka, U(1). Note, that it doesn't matter how the four numbers have been rotated because you can't measure where it's been rotated to due to the rotational symmetry. IOW, the phase of the rotation doesn't matter. BTW another word for phase is "gauge". So that's where the "gauge" in gauge-theory comes from. It's a historical artifact, based on an translation from German to English, that has led to much confusion.

IOW, electromagnetics is now a field theory of four numbers under a local U(1) gauge (phase) symmetry that recreates all observations of electric and magnetic phenomena---which to hammer on the point, is all about measuring photons (the EM forces!). The traditional way of thinking about it is that imposing the local gauge symmetry recreates the mediator of the force, here the photon. (Photons are the force carriers between all charged particles.).

This method has been applied to other forces (weak nuclear, strong nuclear) as well using way more complicated symmetries (SU(2) and SU(3)) leading to the standard model which has unified most of them. E.g. imposing SU(3) on quarks recreates gluons which is the mediator the strong nuclear force.

So with this, I ask again, is this new electromagnetic field real? Is the gauge symmetry real? What do you trust more? The complicated behavior of what your senses and instruments measure ... or the simpler/prettier understanding your brain provides? Note that this is the case where this theory has correctly predicted previously unseen particles.

[Lucky_Vik]

Thanks Jacob. I am giving all this some thought, quite complicated it seems.

[DSKla]

Quick housekeeping update. Moved into a new apartment with my girlfriend and two friends, for a net savings of $325/month. I was a bit hesitant to give up my living-alone-independence, but it really seems like a win. The apartment is a 3 bed 2 bath, and each couple has their own room and bathroom. Spare room for working out, working, fucking off from everyone else. The place is a lot nicer than my old one (still no AC but it does have great ceiling fans), and only half a mile away. My commute has lengthened by 8 minutes. The 12 minute walk to the bus stop is now a 20 minute walk, but the path is a nice walking/bike trail instead of sidewalk. If I get lazy, I could always get a bike and ride to the bus stop, but so far I don't mind.

The most exciting thing is our patio, which gets a little (not a lot) of direct sunlight. I'm going to build some planter boxes and plant herbs and greens. I also plan on growing some indoor mushrooms, but shhhh don't tell my girlfriend. Easier to ask forgiveness than permission. I finished Mycellium Running by Paul Stamets, and can't recommend it enough. Also picked up another of his, Growing Gourmet and Medicinal Mushrooms. It's pretty incredible how mycellium is so deeply-woven into all life on land. I can see this being a new area of interest and experimentation for me. Between mycellium and bacteria, the concensus among the experts seems to be that we know virtually nothing, except that these things are extremely important. Mushrooms and fermented vegetables are in my near future.

[DSKla]

Been lurking a while without posting, so I thought I'd do a new year's update. I found out about ERE last December, so I've officially hit the one yERE mark, and I'm very happy with my progress thus far.

A year ago, I had about $6k in remaining student debt and no savings. Today I have zero debt and about $14k cash, plus another $13k retirement funds. Some of that $13k was already there, but I give myself credit for figuring out how to log into my fund and check the balance.

I negotiated a $5k raise (if my negotiated you mean, Told my boss I wanted a raise, got $5k without any fight, and said thank you). Moved into an apartment that saves me $325 a month, switched from a truck commute to a bus, saving over $2k a year, and finally passed the 50% savings rate.

Most importantly, I read a ton of good books recommended here, or found through research trails from those books and articles. I've learned a lot about a lot, but the best thing I've taken away is whole systems thinking, which allows me to analyze all decisions I make, including but not limited to financial ones. I started meditating, which has made me happier and more balanced. And just recently, I picked up my guitar and developed a practice habit for the first time in a decade. Actually, I sold two guitars I wasn't using and just hung on to my two favorites.

My 2016 plan is to stick at my job at least another year saving money, then move out of the city with my girlfriend to an undetermined location that doesn't suck as much, and get a new job. All the low hanging fruit is gone, and city living is pricey for me, but I can still chip away at my savings rate, hopefully cresting 60% every month pre-move, then approach 75% after moving.

Non-financially, I plan to write a lot of songs on my guitar, and live an antifragile, adaptive life. These aren't really resolutions (which I don't put stock in) so much as logical continuations.

Thanks to everyone here, especially Jacob, who has helped me pull it off.

[thrifty++]

Nice work on the $20k NW increase in one year!
I have always desired spending time in LA. The climate sounds like one of the nicest you could experience and I find all the rock n roll, movie star, hollywood, boardwalks, famous beaches nostalgia to be quite endearing. But maybe its not all its cracked up to be.

[DSKla]

I don't know if I ever was a fan of that stuff, but if so, it wore off pretty quickly. Maybe I just have grass-is-greener syndrome. I literally want to live where the green things outnumber the gray.

[DSKla]

Latest Project: Caveman Chemistry

This can't be a book review, since I am only through the first chapter, but I've begun working my way through Caveman Chemistry, by Kevin Dunn. It includes at-home projects to replicate 28 of the most essential chemical achievements, from the creation of fire (charcoal) to pharmaceuticals. The book is written for people who don't remember a damn thing about chemistry, or never learned to begin with. Dunn is a professor at a place where people tend to only take chemistry as a required course for other studies, and he came up with this book as a way of making it interested to people who had virtually no interest in the subject. The book is narrated by the four Aristotelian elements, which I imagine would annoy any serious scientist, but humanities majors and children will find that the narrative style, and the weirdness, hold their attention.

I got this book as a way to have 28 unconentional "date nights" with my girlfriend, while learning about a topic I ignored in high school. She is a materials science engineer, so she hates the narrative stuff and refuses to read it. She already knows the chemistry, as well, so it was kind of a backfire to interest her as a book, but she's very excited about the projects, so my nerdy attempt to be romantic was not a complete disaster, and may actually end up being quite successful.

I just completed the first project, which is to make charcoal by starting a fire using a homemade bow press (in other words, rubbing sticks together). We made the bow press out of two hardwood dowels with paracord for the string, and used balsa as the wood for the fire. Luckily I anticipated my struggles and bought a 36"x1" piece of balsa, allowing me to cut a ton of starter blocks. After 90 minutes of struggles last night, my girlfriend left in a huff, and I had to finish the project myself today (after typing that sentence I realized the innuendo of it, thanks for not pointing it out).

There is no posture or position for using a bow press that isn't eventually excruciating. We kept burning through block after block before we could get an ember. Plenty of smoke, but then the drill goes right through. Managing the pressure on the block is pretty critical--more until you get smoke, less afterwards. I made several adjustments to be successful today:

1) I added a "trigger," which is to say, the line kept losing tension, so I wrapped an ink pen into the cord by my bow hand, and kept twisting it with my trigger finger to keep a very firm tension on the line. 2) I also cut larger notches into the blocks as a chimney, and positioned the bow more in the middle of the notches than at the edge. 3) And finally, I stacked two blocks atop one another so that when I burned through one, I could quickly get into the next. Previously, I'd been getting good smoke, then running out of wood before I got an ember. With the two-block technique, I was able to keep the balsa and the drill hot and finally chipped an ember into the pile of dust as I approached the end of block #2. A lot of blowing and sprinkling saw dust and splinters ensued, and I eventually was able to burn the pile of spent starter blocks.

I also refreshed a lot of basic chemistry definitions, and learned the reaction by which cellulose turns into charcoal. Next up, we learn about silicates, then make an arrowhead from a beer bottle using pressure flaking.

So far, so fun. I'd definitely recommend this to anyone who, like me, never paid attention in chemistry, or anyone who wants projects to work on with their middle school or high school kids.

[DSKla]

Don't know why I kept calling it a bow press, it's a bow drill.

[DSKla]

I started trying to implement ERE in Dec 2014. I knew I was saving (read: no longer wasting) a lot, but today I decided to do some simple math on JUST my four biggest previous expenses. The results are shameful. This explains why I was able to pull off such a huge net worth swing on such a small salary in just 15 months of ERE ($22,500 or so). And I still live pretty lavishly by a lot of people's standards, including mine.

Housing
Action: moved in with three roommates
Monthly savings: $325
Yearly savings: $3900

Food
Action: Was a huge eater, just started shopping smarter and cut my grocery bill in half with relatively little decrease in total caloric consumption, or quality of food.
Monthly savings: $300
Yearly savings: $3600

Transportation
Action: Stopped driving to work and grocery stores, take bus instead, cancelled parking pass.
Monthly savings: $189
Yearly savings: $2268

Coffee
Action: Stopped buying coffee at coffee shops, brew it at home, which allowed me to go from about $5/day to 30 cents/day. Reduced consumption from avg of 40 oz to 20 oz.
Monthly savings: $140
Yearly savings: $1680

Total yearly savings from just not being an idiot in only four categories: $11,448

Then there's all the little things here and there. These changes took very little effort, and all of them reduced my stress and made me happier, except the roommates. Happier, overall, but slightly greater stress at home when they behave certain ways. Still very tolerable.

While my coworkers whine about wanting raises, I can't help but think each of them is sitting on an easy $12k+ if they decided to get down and dirty with their budgets. I'm reading Thinking, Fast and Slow, and it's incredible how much human beings, myself especially, can fall victim to terrible systemic errors in judgment just by trusting their System 1 thinking instead of cross-checking it against System 2 with a little grade school math. I'd be closing in on $100k net worth if I had just known these things a few years sooner.

[Dragline]

Impressive. Here's a good summary of all of the System 1 heuristics identified in Thinking, Fast and Slow:

https://erikreads.files.wordpress.com/2 ... ummary.pdf

And a great speech by Charlie Munger from 1995 which covers a lot of the same ground: http://www.rbcpa.com/mungerspeech_june_95.pdf

If you make it a habit of becoming conscious of this stuff (both in yourself and others), suddenly the world looks a whole lot different and all kinds of possibilities open up.

[DSKla]

That's an awesome resource, because I've been thinking how much I wanted to share these things with a few friends, but I know there's about a 5% chance I'll convince them to read a nearly 600 page book. Now I can just send the summary and either pique their curiosity, or at least clue them in on the basics.