The Economist on 100 years of Einstein
Thomas Colignatus
It may also be idiocy restated for nitwits again.
I mean, I am not a physicist, and after studying economics now for some
30 years I am close to understanding a tiny fraction of that field, so,
who am I to judge ?
As a reader of The Economist I enjoy much of what they commonly write,
so I might take the article on Einstein at face value and leave it at that.
But, after flipping the coin (as seems proper for quantum physics), my
decision is to reconsider this article and wonder: What does The Economist
actually say ?
The following discussion should help economics students to better understand
economics.
It is said of some physicist, I think it was Pauli, who confessed first
to be interested in economics, but then, seeing how complex its subject
of the economy was, turned his attention to the simplicity of physics.
It is a good anecdote but this view isn’t necessarily correct. Jan Tinbergen
was trained as a physicist and applied Hamiltonians in his Ph. D. thesis
with Ehrenfest. He switched to economics since he couldn’t stand the poverty
in some streets in Leiden. So it all depends upon personal conviction and
biography, and such personal decisions can be respected as they are. Note
also that discoveries in physics have been key to alleviate much poverty.
I recall that when I was a student at the gymnasium, back around 1971
when I was 17, that we had a surprise test to deduce E = m c^2.
I passed - though I can’t reproduce all of that now - while many of my
friends didn’t pass but only so since they were caught by surprise. We
didn’t get around to quantum theory. Incidentlly, my interest was more
in archeology, but, I couldn’t stand the scenes of Biafra and switched
to econometrics.
For the discussion below it is also useful to mention the following
from my personal biography. Around 1980, issues in methodology caused me
to study some logic and the foundations of mathematics as well. Authors
in these subjects you might want to read are Frege, Reichenbach, Suppes
- where I regret that I had hardly time for them. This subject seems like
a departure from economics, but there is some logic to it, also when you
read the discussion below. I still have a draft book on a shelf with the
title “A critical introduction into logic and the methodology of science”
in Dutch that I can hopefully rewrite some day and then in English. There
is still stuff that needs articulation, amongst others a ‘logic of exceptions’
(my approach to the liar paradox and ‘Gödel’). Critical observers
will already find a discussion of propositional logic in my Economics Pack
(1999, 2001). Anyway, after finishing that draft in 1980 I returned to
economics, thinking of Biafra again, as newspaper reports on “The Global
2000 Report to the President” reminded us that the world population would
rise from 4 billion in 1975 to 6.4 billion in 2000 - see Barney (1981).
Studying all this philosophy also caused me to come across Keynes’s obituary
of Frank Ramsey, and I could only agree with it:
Tinbergen copied this more technical approach of measurement to economics,
creating with Frisch and others the approach of ‘econometrics’.
A key notion below will be that physics might ‘overshoot’ by concentrating
on measurement and by neglecting definitions and logic. Econometrics is
open to that same risk.
Mirowski (1989) discusses in more detail how (earlier) economists were
influenced by physics. His book has been discussed critically in the journals
and I apologize for not providing a summary conclusion of that debate.
For now, it suffices to indicate the existence of that part of the literature.
A final point to understand about modern physics is that their math
may not be that developed. There is a 1963 quote of Patrick Suppes that
receives support in 1998 by Richard Gill, professor of mathematical statistics
in Utrecht:
A key ‘problem’ in physics is that their models assume time (e.g. on
the horizontal axis) but seem uncapable of determining whether is goes
forward or backward. This ‘problem’ is thought to have contributed to Boltzmann’s
nervous-breakdown and eventual suicide. Perhaps. In 2003, in a lecture
in Leiden for a general audience, Gerard ‘t Hooft, one of the developers
of ‘the standard model’ in physics, suggested that Time’s Arrow originates
in the order of calculations that nature has to do. At least, if I understand
him correctly. This is a complex thought since ‘1 and adding 1 gives 2’
has an order of calculation while the reverse ‘2 minus 1 gives 1’ also
has an order of calculation while it might be considered, though
not necessarily is, an opposite. My impression basically is that such an
approach could be a petitio principii, a begging of the question,
since one might define the order of the calculation precisely by their
occurrence in time. It is more sensible to consider Time’s Arrow a ‘conceptual
primitive’. As time flows in one direction, it creates a natural environment
in which creatures develop that try to cognate that reality. The mind can
develop a model of time that flows in a same manner, and, that might also
be the best for a mind, if reality is to make sense. This ‘problem’ of
Time’s Arrow might be a good example of how definitions that mimic reality
guide our thinking.
One will understand that I have been thinking like this when I wrote
Colignatus (2002), “Without time, no morality”. Note that a better version
of that article has been included in Colignatus (2005), “Definition &
Reality in the General Theory of Political Economy”, 2nd edition.
With these thoughts in the back of our mind, let us now reconsider the
“miraculous visions” as discussed by The Economist. Again, it seems a very
clear article, much better than other discussions one can find in the Einsteinalia.
Yet, it causes questions.
Is this a theoretical or an empirical impossibility ? Let us suppose
that the Big Bang exploded in three or four dimensions, but not in a fifth
- so that all matter and energy are still connected in that fifth dimension,
and basically all located at point 0 along that axis. Let us call this
direct connection, and its effect shown to us, ‘gravity’. What, then, is
wrong with instantaneity ?
From what I have read in popular discussions about physics, they still
haven’t fully solved the question of ‘local effect’ or ‘effect at a distance’,
so, it would seem proper that they explain why they wouldn’t use Occam’s
razor and adopt this simplest model.
This, you will note, is a non-sequitur. It doesn’t make logical
sense. What Einsteins model does is to stop imagining what those waves
oscillate in. Instead he focusses on the measurement results and makes
these the absolute source of wisdom. This is not necessarily the best answer
to the question what those waves oscillate in, since you might also develop
a theory and deduce testable hypotheses. Einstein does deduce testable
hypotheses but without a theory about what those waves "be". How can they
exist without being something ?
Einsteins model subsequently seems to confuse the definition of space,
given by the definitions of Euclid, and empirical space as measured by
the instruments of physicists.
Modern physicists shy away from the possibility that space and time
have independent definitions within the mathematical modelling of the world.
They regard space and time as what they measure. However, they don’t seem
to see that they can be hopelessly confused when they measure speed in
meters / second while those meters and seconds change under measurement.
My impression is that is better to accept measurement error and try to
explain that error.
When physicists get weird readings, then there can be measurement errors
and something may happen in interaction of their instruments with
what they try to measure. If all instruments, and all the best of them,
show the same measurement error, then there can still be such an interaction.
Physicists, apparently within their philosophy of measurement, tend to
conclude that reality is weird, with “space contracting and time slowing
down”. The proper approach would rather be to stick to the Euclidean definition
of space (and time) as independent concepts that likely form part of the
mind and the ability to think itself, and subsequently judge observations
in those terms.
While Euclid’s definition of space creates emptiness, it may well be
that empirical space is filled with ‘something’ that allows oscillations.
Presumably, electro-magnetism is the proof that such ‘something’ exists.
There are reports that the ‘void’ would be able to produce particles. Also,
there can be phenomena in that ‘void’ that appear to us as ‘contracting’
or whatever. All that is OK. But if you want to understand what space is,
you would rather turn to Euclid where contracting is out of the question
by definition.
It may also be that I simply don’t understand what Einstein did. But
then this article of The Economist really hasn’t been clear enough.
(1) “(...) the world is ‘non-local’. That is to say, quantum interactions
occur instantaneously over arbitrarily long distances.” Here they
refer to the Alain Aspect experiment in 1982.
(2) “This shows that light is actually neither just a particle nor just
a wave, but rather both simultaneously.”
(3) “Physics, up to that point in history, had been “deterministic”.
(...) But uncertainty is at the core of quantum mechanics.”
(ad 1) You will note that there is now non-locality while with gravity
it was considered ‘impossible’. Can we please have some consistency ?
(ad 2) The same goes with the wave-particle opposition. This is like
saying that two sides of a coin are the same side. OK, this might be true
if the coin is a sphere, but, generally the definition of a coin is understood
to be a flat circular object with two sides. We can only conclude that
this discussion of waves and particles is gibberish.
The crux of the problem seems to be that physicists first tell us that
atom are particles, and then they do an experiment and conclude ‘Hey, it
is a wave !’. One can agree that it is important to generate curiosity,
but the proper conclusion is that the definitions aren’t right yet, instead
of saying that something is a wave and a particle. Would you enjoy
economists explaining to you that inflation is up and down at the same
time ?
You also remember the story that masses that move at the speed of light
get infinite weight ? Well, light moves at the speed of light - does it
have infinite weight ? Well, light would have no mass, correction, it would
have some weight since it apparently is deflected by the sun ... Please,
ever heard about consistency ?
Yes, Little Red Riding Hood was eaten by the wolf and later jumped out
of the belly alive. Let us move away from that level of explanation.
(ad 3) One should distinguish physics from morality.
The true opposition to determinism is the free will (volition). This
is a discussion within the theory of morals and it has little to do with
physics. Colignatus (2005) clarifies that the two opposing views of determinism
and volition are each consistent and that there is no way to determine
which is true. The mind has to consider both angles and cannot avoid the
moral weight of choice even though the scientific method assumes determinism
by definition. Some moralists hold that ‘freedom is recognition of the
necessary’ and that is fine as long as there still is moral responsibility.
For example, we still need a judiciary system and cannot absolve criminals
for their crimes by accepting that they had a bad upbringing.
The other opposition within physics is between certainty and uncertainty.
Richard Gill, referred to above, holds that quantum mechanics provides
a true model for probability:
Some years ago, I started out trying to understand that Aspect experiment.
I gave up since the definitions and terms where hopeless. I am quite willing
to follow Gill’s advice that we revise introduction courses into statistics
by including quantum mechanics, Bell inequalities and then also that Aspect
experiment, but let us first require some clarity on what these are.
I wonder about some experiments of modern physics: do they really know
what they are doing, and isn’t there the slightest possibility that they
create a black hole on Earth ? I don’t think that I like that risk anymore.
My suggestion is that those experiments are banned to the Asteriod Belt.
Physics with its methodology has had more impact on economics than the
other way around. Should this continue, so that, so to speak, economists
develop gibberish that can destroy the Earth’s economy ? It is a fun question
to ask, with the obvious answer that both sciences should enhance transparancy.
It is a bit slow, after 100 years, to discover that physics with Einstein’s
approach has been turned into an arcane science. Yet, it is never too late
to come to one’s senses. One way to enhance transparancy is to tell science
journalists that they write gibberish instead of thinking ‘it is only for
the lay public’.
There is a caveat for both sciences with respect to mathematics. There
is a danger with mathematicians that they lose track of reality and the
very aim of their research. Paradoxes like the liar paradox, the Russell
set theory paradox, Gödel on his epi-phenomenon on the liar paradox,
and the like generate confusion, but some solutions proposed by mathematicians
are no deep mathematical results though many think so. Kenneth Arrow with
his theorem on voting caused much havoc, since, though the math is right,
his interpretation wasn’t. Thus, it is difficult to strike a balance between
mathematics and reality, and more awareness of this problem would help
research. It might be wise to include more statistics in your programme
of research.
Hopefully things will be clearer when The Economist writes about “200
years of Einstein”, if and when the world survives the gibberish of physics.
Yet, it seems that the considerations in this short discussion can at
least be of use to students who wish to understand more of economics.
Colignatus (1997), “An estimator for the road freight handling factor”,
ewp-urb/9703001, also available at http://thomascool.eu/Papers/Freight/HandlingFactor.html
Colignatus (1999, 2001), “The Economics Pack, Applications for Mathematica”,
Scheveningen, JEL-99-0820, ISBN 90-804774-1-9
Colignatus (2005), “Definition & Reality in the General Theory of
Political Economy”, 2nd edition, Dutch University Press (non-printable
pdf
on my website)
Galbraith, James K. (1998), “Created Unequal. The crisis in American
pay”, The Free Press
Gill, R. (1997), “Roundtable discussion on education of physicists”
www.math.uu.nl/people/gill/
Hao Wang (1974), “From mathematics to philosophy”, Routledge & Kegan
Paul
Kapur, J.N. & H.K. Kesavan (1992), “Entropy optimization principles
with applications”, Academic Press
Mirowski, Ph. (1989), “More heat than light”, Cambridge
Theil, H. (1971), “Principles of econometrics”, John Wiley & Sons
http://www.math.uu.nl/people/gill/
(Also relevant for survival analysis and the position of statistics as
decision science.)
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/reichenb.htm
(PM.1. This states “Another example is the definition of straight line
which is co-ordinated with a physical process, namely the path of a light
ray.” Note that a straight line is axiomized by Euclid so that it is quite
another matter whether light follows such a path. Light wouldn’t go straight
if it is deflected by gravity. PM 2. This states “that the reality of space
and time is an unquestionable result of the epistemological analysis of
the theory of relativity.” Note that, instead, reality is defined by your
sense-experiences. You can never arrive at reality by analysing a theory.
PM 3. Reichenbach is apt at such phrases, but there are sensible statements
too, so he seems to be up to something.)
http://www.stanford.edu/~psuppes/
http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/1810/3484/1/Ramsey.html
(highly advised, especially when you want to know how philosophers determine
whether the pub where they want to go to truly exists)
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Societies/Times__obits.html
|