Denmark vs Germany

"The Talmudic philosopher doesn't give a hoot for 'reality'." - Einstein on Bohr
"Stop telling God what to do" - Bohr, after Einstein's proclamation that God does not play dice.

I have recently been reading more closely about the famous debate between Neils Bohr and Einstein regarding quantum mechanics, which actually plays out like a drama. I only wished I could comprehend their thoughts and the German. It really is remarkable that 80 or so years later, the same sort of arguments reappear in various guises. But what is a physicist doing, speaking about philosophy with all its associated "-isms"?

John Wheeler is on (video) record, saying that "philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers". Stephen Hawking claims in the first line of his latest book that "Philosophy is dead". It might be that modern physics is modern philosophy, much like physicists used to be considered "natural philosophers". In any case, anyone who looks closely at the foundations of any  modern physical theory (in particular, quantum mechanics) is bound to hit some fundamental questions about the ontological or epistemological aspects of reality.

The fascinating thing about Einstein is not so much in his genius as evident from his work when he was alive, as it is in the remnants of his genius left over long after his death. For instance, it seemed for the longest time that Bohr had famously defeated Einstein, so that orthodox quantum mechanics dominated up till the 1980s. This prevailing interpretation of quantum mechanics takes the name "Copenhagen interpretation", to rub salt into the great German's wounds. Yet, in that duration of time, no completely satisfactory account of the meaning of quantum mechanics had been settled on. Today, Einstein's EPR paradox is the symbol of all that feels wrong with quantum mechanics, namely, the high-handed way it deals with objective reality. I must also state that no completely conclusive experiment has ruled out Einsteins's doctrine of Trennungsprinzip, which is the idea that separability constitutes objectivity. The notion of entanglement denies this sort of local realism, and is often regarded as the characteristic feature of quantum theory. Today, it seems that quantum mechanics is in good shape, with all its spectacular successes. In truth, with each success, the problem of what it all means only gets deeper, but of course, no quantum physicist would openly admit that the enterprise from which he makes his living is built on shaky grounds.

The other example of Einstein coming back from the dead is the revival of his proposed cosmological constant - once the "biggest blunder in his life". It almost seems, befittingly, that he had figured out the intricacies of time-travel, and is regularly making visits from his grave to tease the rest of us. So how was it that he managed to think so deeply? I stole the excerpt below:

 It seems to have been an emotional need for Einstein to detach himself from his fellow humans in order to devote himself to the study of the Cosmos. For example, Einstein’s former associate Adriaan Fokker wrote in his highly perceptive obituary of Einstein: ‘His true passion was to penetrate the riddle of the immeasurable cosmos, which stood high above the muddle and the confusion of personal interests, feelings and low impulses of men. Such thought comforted him when he had seen through the hypocrisy of the common ideals of decency. The consideration of this external reality lured him as a liberation from an earthly prison.’. Einstein made a similar point himself: ‘I mercifully belong to those people who are granted as well as able to dedicate their best efforts to the consideration and the research of objective, time-independent matters. How fortunate I am that this mercy, which makes one quite independent of personal fate and of the behaviour of one’s fellow humans, has befallen me.’ 

Well, you can't blame physicists for being weird.

A generous Aussie

What follows shall be a personal post. I am playing squash for my college, and today I was up against an Aussie from some other college. We engaged in the usual pre-match conversation, where I learned that he was a PhD student in law. After revealing that I was studying mathematics, he lit up and informed me that he had met the Fields medallist Cedric Villani just yesterday. It turned out that I had skipped his rare lecture to turn up in time for the game with him. Of course, I didn't tell him that. I also found out that he had done a mathematics major during his undergraduate days, so I was leaning towards categorizing him on the "cool" side.

We proceeded to the best-of-five-sets match. I would be no match for him in terms of power, so I played a patient retrieving game. The first set was very close, and I thought I had it, at 8-something up, but I made a few mistakes to lose the set. Well, it was still early, and I didn't commit too much during the set, so I was ready for at least three more sets. I took a comfortable lead in the second set to reach game point, but allowed him to claw back to 6-8. Then an incident occurred, which I believe led to his post-match comments, which I shall reveal later. I retrieved an impossible looking shot, which he reciprocated with a return which I suspected was a double-bounce. I didn't play the return, and held up two fingers, which is the gesture to indicate a double bounce. I believe he nodded and then proceeded to serve. This surprised me, because I had the impression that he agreed that his shot wasn't good, so I asked him for the ball. A discussion ensued, and not wanting to create a scene, I offered to replay the point. Apparently, he thought I had held up two fingers to indicate that my retrieval shot was a double-bounce. Admittedly, I was not completely clear with my gesture, but I was also certain that my shot was good. Ordinarily, the point would be replayed, but I let him have the point anyway, which brought him to 7-8. I kept my cool, and won the remaining points to take the second set.

During the break, I clarified the matter with him, but I could sense his unhappiness. Which was strange, since I  had given him the point in question. Perhaps it was just in-match behavior. Anyway, we went to the third set, which was another very close set that I took. So I was up 2-1 in sets, and only required one more for the win. My plan for the fourth set was to go for winners to hopefully build an early lead. This went horribly wrong, and I was behind very quickly. I realized that there was no chance of claiming this set, so I conserved energy and tried to make him run as much as possible in the remaining points. I lost the fourth set 9-1. Ouch.

Therefore, it was down to the fifth set, which I think he was pretty confident of taking, having destroyed me in the earlier set. But this was precisely what I wanted. Well-rested after my break in the fourth set, I came out with all cylinders firing. One of my first shots was a lucky flick from the back corner off the side of my racket. He claimed that it was a bad shot because he heard a weird sound (which actually came from the the ball hitting side of my racket, rather than the tin at the front of the court). Not wanting to get into another debate, I conceded the point, bewildered. I later hit a very nice shot just above the tin, which he also claimed to be a bad shot. I gave him the point. In the subsequent points, I played very well, and retrieved many shots that he believed were winners, which must have been frustrating. Eventually, I took the final set and hence the match. The mandatory handshake was firm and felt friendly.

Five-setters are draining, and outside the court, I thanked him for the great match. His reply was something like "Yeah,..., I think I was kind of generous, you know...".

WHAT???

Then he continued, "I think you have a warped (not sure if this was the exact word) view of your double bounces,...some of your shots I thought were double-bounce, but you didn't call it".

I replied, "Is that the case? I really thought my shots were good. If I thought it was bad, I would have called it. I wouldn't want to win on dubious points." (Note: as with all recollections of conversations, the exact words were probably a little bit different.)

"... I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong. But I just have a different philosophy when playing squash. It's just a college match. I prefer to err on the side of my opponent. Some of your shots, I was sure they were double-bounce, but you didn't call it..."

Now, I was actually quite enraged at the accusation, but I understood that he might not have been feeling so good after losing a 5-setter. (The last time I played a 5-setter, I lost, and that was painful. It still haunts me a bit today. But that was IHG, which is a far more emotional affair.) I let him cool down and pack his stuff, while I sat down to try to recall the basis of his claims. Perhaps I was really poor in my judgements. So I offered him an apology, "Sorry if I had made any mistakes just now. I wouldn't play on intentionally if I knew I hit a bad shot....So we're cool?"

He didn't reply and left.

That was really sucky. I felt completely maligned, yet unable to make sense of his accusations. I sat down for a good ten minutes to try to recall which points had been dubious, and it seemed that in almost all of them, I had given him the benefit of the doubt. Then, again, maybe I overestimated myself? But I had never before been accused of playing unfairly. Besides, I have always played a retriving style, which can frustrate opponents who think that they've got a point won. But he doesn't look like the type who would accuse his opponents of poor sportsmanship. I even resorted to "all's fair in the game" to try to feel better in case I was really playing unsportingly, which I am certain I wasn't. Maybe it's quite annoying to lose to a skinny Asian? Finally, a realization dawned on me.

He's a lawyer.