Behind any quantum mechanics interpretation, there is a belief system

Full disclaimer, I have my own interpretation which I call it the Elliptical Composability Interpretation. Not published because I do not want to publish it (just yet), but please take my word for it, it is there and it is fully formed and it is the base of my intuition. Also I am not pushing this and selling my ideas to anybody yet. At core I am a physicist who happens to work in foundations by accident. Ultimately nature decides who is right and who is wrong. Galileo still rules. I am after falsifiable predictions. If proven true, I am right, if not I will not try to convince other people I am right. 

So what are the core beliefs of various interpretations?

Start with mine:

Elliptic Composability

Core belief:

Any physical problem can ultimately be resolved by finding the correct mathematical structure.

The measurement problem is not evidence that quantum mechanics is incomplete. It is evidence that we have not yet discovered the proper categorical, geometric, algebraic, or compositional framework.

Collapse problem?

Find better mathematics.

Incompatible temporal descriptions?

Find better mathematics.

Emergence of classicality?

Find better mathematics.

Nonlocality?

Find better mathematics.

The hidden faith is not in quantum mechanics. It is in mathematics itself.

The conviction is:

Structural consistency is deeper than ontology.

This is almost a Grothendieck-like worldview. Reality is not made of particles, waves, branches, or hidden variables. Reality is whatever survives after enough mathematical consistency conditions have been imposed.

Bohmian Mechanics

Core belief:

The world must consist of definite things that exist independently of observation.

Bohmians can tolerate almost anything except ontological ambiguity.

Nonlocality?

Fine.

Pilot waves in configuration space?

Fine.

Strange hidden variables?

Fine.

As long as particles have actual positions.

The hidden intuition is essentially Aristotelian and die-hard classical physics approach:

Physical reality must consist of objects possessing definite properties.

The mathematics is secondary.

A Bohmian will often accept very ugly mathematics if it preserves ontology.

A Bohmian would sacrifice elegance in a second for an actual particle trajectory. 

Many Worlds

Core belief is:

The mathematical formalism is literally true.

Whatever the equations say exists, exists.

No exceptions.

No additional rules.

No collapse.

No hidden variables.

No observer modifications.

No ontology layered on top.

The Schrödinger equation defines reality.

Reality owes us no intuitive picture.

The hidden faith is almost Platonic.

Mathematical existence and physical existence coincide.

That is why Everettians are willing to accept absurdly enormous ontologies.

They are not attached to branches.

They are attached to taking the mathematics seriously.

Copenhagen

Copenhagen is fascinating because it almost lacks a belief system.

Its core belief is:

Physics predicts observations. Stop there.

The wavefunction is a calculation device.

Measurement outcomes are real.

The formalism works.

Do not ask for more.

This is why Copenhagen endlessly frustrates everybody.

It refuses to answer the questions everybody else thinks matter.

Ironically, it may be the most physical interpretation precisely because it refuses metaphysical commitments.

I say:

Copenhagen may be mathematically ugly but physically honest.

The theory tells us how to obtain experimental probabilities.

That part works.

Everything beyond that is optional speculation.

QBism

Core belief:

Science is about agents making bets on experiences.

The quantum state is not a physical object.

It is a statement of expectation.

The hidden conviction is almost Bayesian philosophy elevated to ontology:

Reality is less fundamental than experience.

If Bohm starts from "thingness," QBism starts from "experience."

Objective Collapse

Core belief:

Measurement outcomes are genuinely physical events.

The universe really does possess irreducible stochastic processes.

The hidden intuition:

Nature sometimes chooses.

Unlike Copenhagen, this choice is supposed to occur objectively and mathematically.

Relational Quantum Mechanics

Core belief:

There is no God's-eye view of reality.

Properties exist only relative to systems.

This comes from the same intellectual tradition as relativity.

The hidden conviction is:

Relations are more fundamental than objects.

That one resonates somewhat with my categorical instincts.

Category theory naturally privileges morphisms over objects.

Consistent Histories

Core belief:

Classical logical consistency can be recovered locally.

The quantum world does not require a single global story.

Different consistent descriptions may coexist.

The underlying intuition is:

Description precedes ontology.

GRW (Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber)

The stated idea:

The wavefunction is real, but unitary evolution is not exact.

The hidden belief is deeper:

Measurement outcomes are too important to be emergent.

A GRW supporter looks at the measurement problem and says:

"Enough. Stop trying to explain definite outcomes through decoherence, branching, observers, information, histories, agents, or categories. Just modify the dynamics."

They have very little patience for interpretational gymnastics.

The core conviction is almost engineering-minded:

If the theory doesn't produce outcomes, fix the theory.

Not unlike Einstein's attitude toward quantum mechanics.

A GRW person is willing to sacrifice mathematical elegance if reality becomes clearer.

Where Everettians say:

Preserve the Schrödinger equation at all costs.

GRW says:

Preserve actual measurement outcomes at all costs.

The hidden faith is:

Definite events are fundamental. 

Ruth Kastner / Transactional Interpretation

This one is much more fascinating.

Wheeler-Feynman already had the notion of advanced and retarded waves.

Cramer developed the Transactional Interpretation.

Kastner pushed it much further into what she calls the Possibilist Transactional Interpretation.

The mathematics is secondary here.

The real conviction is:

Reality is fundamentally an exchange process.

Not particles.

Not waves.

Not observers.

Not branches.

The universe consists of completed transactions.

An emitter offers.

An absorber confirms.

Reality emerges when the transaction actualizes.

The hidden intuition is almost relational but stronger than Rovelli's.

Rovelli says:

Properties exist only relative to systems.

Kastner says:

Events exist only through completed interactions.

The ontology is neither object-centered nor observer-centered.

It is process-centered.

So,

A Bohmian reveals a preference for ontology.

An Everettian reveals a preference for mathematical closure.

A QBist reveals a preference for experience.

A collapse theorist reveals a preference for objective events.

A Copenhagenist reveals a preference for operational discipline.

An elliptic composability advocate reveals a preference for structural resolution through mathematics. 

Summarizing the belief systems

Interpretation	Hidden Conviction
Copenhagen	Physics is about observed outcomes
Bohm	Reality must contain definite objects
Everett	Mathematics is reality
GRW	Definite events are fundamental
QBism	Experience is fundamental
Relational QM	Relations are fundamental
Consistent Histories	Consistent descriptions are fundamental
Transactional (Kastner)	Interactions are fundamental
My composability program	Structural consistency is fundamental

Interpretations tend to reveal what kind of thing their proponents instinctively trust.

Bohmians trust objects.

Everettians trust equations.

QBists trust experience.

GRW trusts events.

Kastner trusts processes.

I trust mathematical structure.

And Copenhagen uniquely refuses to say what it trusts.

That's why it survives every philosophical attack. It simply declines to enter the metaphysical game.

Key observation:

Copenhagen is mathematically inconsistent but physical, while the others are mathematically consistent but nonphysical.

Copenhagen's followers effectively say:

"I don't care whether the ontology is coherent. Show me the experiment."

Most other interpretations say:

"I don't care whether the ontology is experimentally distinguishable. Show me the coherent picture."

That is the real divide.

Physicality versus explanatory closure.

The reason foundations debates never die is that neither camp is being irrational. They are optimizing different objective functions. The Copenhagenist minimizes metaphysics. The Everettian minimizes modifications to the formalism. The Bohmian minimizes ontological ambiguity. The GRW advocate minimizes ambiguity in outcomes. The transactionalist minimizes isolated objects in favor of completed processes. I minimize unresolved structural inconsistency.

Each interprets "understanding quantum mechanics" as solving a different problem. That is why the debates resemble discussions between religions, even when conducted by extremely honest physicists. They are often defending different notions of what counts as an acceptable explanation in the first place.

Rule zero: always check the math first

 Reflecting back on the Joy Cristian controversy, I think one lesson jumps up front and center:

Always check the math first.

When Joy first uploaded his claims on the archive, there was flurry of preprint activities: everyone explaining why Joy cannot be right, and Joy responding that they do not understand the geometric algebra and dismissing the counterclaims. 

Now for me I have the advantage of working in both worlds: academia and industry. and in industry my job is to write software programs. I think I am an above average coder and seeing what Joy claims my first instinct was:

this is interesting, if correct I can build a software program to test the claim (which I actually did later).

But to code it properly, I need to understand the math to build a correct implementation. So I started to follow Joy's argument mathematically. To my surprise I discovered that the math is bogus and I wrote a preprint showing where and how it fails.

But the larger lesson is why nobody else in foundations double checked the math. The initial reaction was: Joy must be wrong because it contradicts my intuition/formalism in which I operate.

But this is a bad approach. Who says your interpretation is the correct one? A Bohmian will never convince a MWI supporter he is right. Also a MWI supporter will never convince a Copenhagen person he is right and they are wrong.

Math on the other hand is clearcut. If you discover a math contradiction then the argument dies right then and there. No more "I am right, no I am right" arguments.

Checking the math consistency is task zero.

DISHONESTY IN ACADEMIA: THE DEAFENING SILENCE OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE JOURNAL ON AN ACCEPTED PAPER THAT FAILED THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

More than two years ago, on February 26th 2018, I was contacted by the Royal Society Open Science Journal to referee a submitted manuscript. Two prior referees had accepted the paper and two had rejected it, and I was the tiebreaker. The manuscript, Quantum Correlations are Weaved by the Spinors of the Euclidean Primitives by Joy Christian, basically claims that Bell’s theorem is incorrect. If true, this would be a game changer in the foundation of quantum mechanics. Bell’s theorem shows that it is impossible to construct a local realistic model of the theory.

Bell’s result is an impossibility proof; it attracts such passion as the impossibility of perpetual motion machines that were so popular some 100 years ago. A manuscript claiming the invention of a working perpetual motion device, proof that Earth is flat (yes, there is such a thing as an annual conference of Flat-Earth-ers), or that the sun circles Earth would be rejected by any respectable journal right away.

So, what if someone managed to “disprove” Bell’s theorem and, better yet, to publish that “discovery”? This would create lots of debates and excitement – certainly, notoriety and free publicity for the journal who published your claim. In other words, good business.

But who is claiming to have “disproven” Bell theorem? Enter Joy Christian, who has been asserting this claim for 13 years. It was debunked by many scientists and scientific panels over the years, yet Christian is not having any of it. Basically, he alleges to have found a method for obtaining the quantum correlation of a Bell pair of particles, by using a Bell “loophole”. In the no-mans-land at the intersection of physics, mathematics, and philosophy, experts in all three fields are scarce. Christian’s ‘method’ is based on a mathematical error, which is ultimately adding apples and oranges, but the error is hard to spot if you are not a genuine expert in geometric algebra. Add to this the language and structure of a well-written physics paper and you might convince an unsuspecting referee to approve your manuscript.

I had found Christian’s mistake again in the manuscript and I recommended to reject the paper. Certain that it would never be published, I went about my daily business. Imagine my surprise when I heard Christian had somehow managed to publish his nonsense. I thought this impossible; the vote had been 3 to 2 for rejection. I checked and found that indeed, the paper had gotten accepted after submitting a revision. However, I was not contacted by the journal to review the revision. I started contacting colleagues who had to deal with Joy’s claims before, and together with Philippe Grangier, Richard Gill, Howard Wiseman, Brukner Časlav, Gregor Weihs, and Scott Aaronson, in a letter to the journal on July 28th 2018, we asked that the article be withdrawn:

Dear Editor-in-Chief,

We are writing to you about the publication of the paper “Quantum Correlations are weaved by the spinors of the Euclidean primitives” by Joy Christian in your journal on May 30 2018 http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/5/180526

The result of this paper conflicts with an established scientific fact (Bell’s theorem) well known in the foundations of quantum physics and a basis of modern quantum information science; moreover, the subject of recent high-profile experiments (“loophole free tests of Bell’s theorem”). The paper contains numerous errors in elementary algebra, calculus, and logic. The manuscript was rejected by three of the five reviewers, but the editorial process as stated to the reviewers by your journal was not followed: the manuscript was accepted without informing the reviewers and giving them a chance to rebut the misleading statements made by the author (see review history on the link above).

The claims made by the author are well known from 2007 and they were disproven in the past (https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1577 ). From time to time Joy Christian attempts to publish his faulty claims and recently a similar paper was withdrawn by Annals of Physics https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491616300975

The journal did extend an invitation to write a rebuttal paper but stated that Joy Christian would be a reviewer to the rebuttal. This is not an acceptable course of action from an ethical point of view because it legitimizes scientific dishonesty on behalf of Joy Christian who is well aware of the issues with his arguments for more than 10 years and yet continues to obfuscate the truth.

Considering this, we are respectfully asking your journal to withdraw the paper.



Sincerely,

Florin Moldoveanu - George Mason University (reviewer 5)

Richard Gill – Leiden University

Howard Wiseman – Griffith University (reviewer 3)

Scott Aaronson - University of Texas

Philippe Grangier - Institute of Optics, Charles Fabry Laboratory

Brukner Caslav - IQOQI - Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information Vienna

Gregor Weihs – Innsbruck University



This was about two years ago. We kept asking for updates, and when not stonewalling us, the journal kept pushing one roadblock after another.

The Royal Society Open Science Journal had more than two years to get their act together. By now, their silence speaks louder than words.

It is unconscionable that instead of putting extra checks in place for authors with a history of inaccurate publications, the journal violated their own peer review policy and chose to maintain a faulty paper instead of withdrawing it.

We gave the journal the benefit of the doubt for two years. The passing of time made it clear that the decision to maintain the faulty paper is no accident and no mistake.

Perhaps this is a symptom of a larger systemic problem with open journals who are paid by the authors to get their papers (usually rejected elsewhere) published. When your salary and livelihood depend on the people you are supposed to enforce rules upon, the temptation to bend those rules is high.

I grew up in a former communist country of the eastern bloc. At the time of communism, a rule supposed to be enforced by the traffic police was that if you pay for a traffic ticket on the spot, you will be charged with half the fine. You might guess that most officers pocketed that money. The rule only solidified endemic corruption.

In our case, the author is well known for making the same incorrect argument over and over again. However, the root of the problem seems to be with the journal. After all, had they followed their own policy, the problem would not have arisen in the first place. And in case the mistake was genuine (as sometimes mistakes do happen), is two years enough time to get the record straight? It makes me wonder: just how often did the editors turn a blind eye to publication issues to secure revenue? Is it really a good idea that those in charge of rule enforcement are financially dependent on the rule violators?

Is Walter Lewin wrong about Kirchhoff's law? 

Thinking how to organize the upcoming material about geometry and physics I came about a recent controversy about an electromagnetism lecture by Walter Lewin and I want to talk about it in this post. 

First, a little background. When I started teaching undergraduate physics I needed help on how to structure the lectures. Personally I wanted to emulate Feynman lectures, but the physics departments impose on you either Giancolli or Young and Friedman. I turned to internet for help and I found the outstanding undergrad lectures by Walter Lewin which I adapted to my needs - thank you Professor Lewin. In lesson 16 on electromagnet induction which you can watch below

on minute 34:54 the fireworks begins. The setup starts unassuming: a trivial circuit with a 1 V battery and two resistors in series. The current is computed as well as the voltage drop across the larger resistor. Then the battery is removed and is replaced by a solenoid in the middle of the circuit which generates an increasing magnetic field such that the induced voltage is the same 1 V as the battery. Now the question becomes: what is the voltage drop on each resistors? The answer is that two voltmeters connected on the same points one on one side of the loop and one of the other side will record different voltages of opposite polarities! In this case one will record +0.9 V and the other -0.1 V. And the experiment confirms this!!!

For  a complete step-by-step derivation see: web.mit.edu/8.02/www/Spring02/lectures/lecsup3-15.pdf

This is deeply at odds with our intuition and there are a lot of "proofs" of why Lewin is wrong. Here is one example which has the advantage over others that it is in English.

Lewin responded to those challenges in two distinct posts in a poor manner in my opinion: he simply repeated slowly and loudly his explanation and did not address the root cause of the discomfort people experience when presented with this counter-intuitive phenomena. So I will attempt to add my own  pedagogical explanation of how to understand this.

First, are the two voltmeters connected on the same points? It is not clearly visible on the video how the two voltmeters are connected, but if you have access to an electronics lab you can actually connect the two voltmeters on the very same points and repeat the experiment. So how is it possible that two identical voltmeters connected to the same points read something differently? This is because different currents flow through the two voltmeters.

Now you may say: this is absurd, why different currents flow through the two voltmeters? Can I just simply use only one voltmeter and place it on the right hand side of the circuit, and then flip it to the left hand side? Why would the reading change?

The reading does not change as long as you do not cross the changing magnetic field zone.  However as you cross the changing magnetic field the voltmeter reading changes gradually from the right hand side value of +0.9 V to the left hand side value of -0.1 V. We can actually compute how this happens and I will do it below. 

But before doing it, I want to say what is wrong in the "disproof" video above. First, the solenoid is the same size of the circuit and is placed under the circuit. This allows for the gradual voltage change due to crossing of the changing magnetic field to be misinterpreted as a voltage drop on the copper wiring. Second, the explanation is inconsistent with regards to the current intensities. If you compute the intensity in the copper wire due to 1 V difference you do not get 1 milli Ampers, but a huge current because copper wire has almost zero resistance. Also there is a big misunderstanding on the how to compute the flux by stating that a vertical plane has no flux going though it. If the loop would be completely vertical this would have been correct, but the the voltmeter loop also contains a horizontal path closing the circuit and this has non-zero magnetic flux crossing through it.

So now onto the computation. I will use only one voltmeter which is placed on the right like in the first picture below:

Then I move the connection points A and B and flip the voltmeter wire to cross the magnetic region (see the second picture and notice that the direction of i stays the same: from the voltmeter to r2).

Let's work out the math in the first case. There are two loops with currents I and i and the resistance of the voltmeter is R >> r1, r2:

I(r1+r1) - i r2= E    (induction law)

i r2 - I r2 + i R = 0  (Kirchhoff)

in the second equation r2 << R and we can ignore the first term: -I r2 + i R = 0 which means i << I and in the first equation we can ignore the negative term resulting in:

I (r1 + r2) = E from which we extract the current in the main loop.

Then V read by the voltmeter is V = i R = I r2 = E r2 /(r1+r2) = 0.9 V using the resistors and E value from the lecture.

Now we are proceeding to flip the voltmeter from right to the left. Suppose that during flipping we cross s% of the changing magnetic flux area (the yellow area) with the voltmeter loop. The first equation reads as before:

I(r1+r1) - i r2= E    (induction law)

but the second one is changed to:

i r2 - I r2 + i R = -sE  (induction law)

the same order of magnitude tricks apply and we get:

I (r1 + r2) = E

-I r2 + i R = - sE

and the voltage recorded by the voltmeter is V = i R = I r2 - sE

V = E r2 /(r1+r2) - sE  with  \(s \in (0,1)\)

So on the right side the voltmeter reads E r2 /(r1+r2) = 0.9 V and on the left side the voltmeter reads 

E r2 /(r1+r2) -E = -E r1/(r1 + r2) = -0.1 V with all the intermediate values in between as we flip the device.

This effect is shown in Mabilde's video from 17:40 to 18:00, but his explanation is wrong.

Alternatively when the voltmeter is flipped all the way to the left we can consider a loop not enclosing the area of changing magnetic field and arrive at the same -0.1 V by using Kirchhoff's just like we did on the right hand side.

If we consider two left and right voltmeters we can also understand why they record different values. We can consider the outer loop and apply the induction law to it and see that a current "i" flows from one voltmeter through the other due to the area of changing magnetic field. Since the voltmeters are polarity sensitive one would record a positive voltage and another one a negative voltage. In fact we can further simplify the setting by removing the two resistors completely and in this case one voltmeter would record +0.5 V and another -0.5 V:

In conclusion the Walter Lewin is completely correct and the controversy stems from blind trust in Kirchhoff's circuit laws which are valid only when there is no changing of magnetic flux in the circuits and a misunderstanding of Maxwell's equations.

Physics and Geometry

Returning to gauge theory, physics is best understood in terms of geometry. The area is vast and I am considering how to best explain the key concepts in the most intuitive way. Today I want to start with the broad picture to present the relevant mathematical landscape. We need to consider two kinds of transformations:

• transformations in space-time
• gauge transformations of physical fields.

The mathematical machinery involved uses fiber bundles and Cartan's language of differential forms. There are two key differential forms: the connection 1-form and the curvature 2-form. Another essential ingredient is that of parallel transport. In terms of physics parallel transport corresponds to the transport of physical information. When we do parallel transport around a closed loop the final state is in general different than the initial state.

Here is some trivial example from ordinary high-school geometry. You are walking on Earth along the equator  and you carry with you an arrow which points North. You walk 1/4 circumference of the Earth when you decide to walk all the way to North Pole. At any point during your journey you keep the orientation of your arrow at time \(t\) parallel to the orientation of your arrow at time \(t+\Delta t\). Initially the arrow was perpendicular to the direction of travel, and when you started going North the arrow is parallel to the direction of travel. Once at North Pole you deice to take the shortest path to your starting point. What is the orientation of your arrow when you get back? Try this with a pencil and a ball.

The parallel transport on a closed loop can be used to define curvature. In terms of physics, gauge theory teaches us that:

force=curvature

When discussing gauge theory, the natural language is that of bundles. On bundles, one starts with product bundles but then one proceeds to general bundles obtained by gluing together product bundles. For Standard Model the product bundles are enough, but for gauge theory on curved space-time (string theory, quantum gravity) you need to use the most general bundles.

One problem arises then: how to relate what different observers see?

Changes in observers are described by cocycles. Cocycles depend on both the topology of the space-time manifold and the structure of the gauge group. The deviation of vector bundles from from product bundles is measured by the so-called characteristic classes (Chern, Euler, Pontryagin, Stiefel-Whitney, Thom classes).

To explain the math machinery of all this is a very ambitious project and I am not sure how far along I can carry the series but I will try. The geometry involved is very beautiful (at least to me). Please stay tuned.

Industry vs. Academia

Before returning to talk about gauge theory I want to discuss a topic out of my personal experience. I started my career in academia, I switched to industry where I was very successful, and I manage to come back to academia. As such I can offer a good perspective of both and hopefully clarify misconceptions. 

For a little history, I published my first paper second year in college and after graduation I joined the most productive theoretical research group in Romania which was publishing about a paper a month. The sky was the limit and I chose to get my PhD in US. I went to UMCP and after graduation I joined my adviser's recently created company switching to industry where I rapidly climbed the corporate ladder. Now I am back in academia (with a foot still in the industry).

In academia there is this perception (and arrogance) that the outside world is not smart enough. This is farthest from the truth. The smartest person I ever met was Alain Connes (and also the most arrogant person I ever met) but beside this outlier, I can state with confidence that the industry has on average the smarter persons. In general their abilities correlate strongly with the amount of money or power they amass. Another misconception is that in industry you do not work on interesting or hard problems. The opposite is true, and I saw time and time again how the state-of-the-art knowledge in the industry is 10 to 20 years ahead of the  state-of-the-art knowledge in academia. The best industry knowledge is kept under wraps on a need to know basis as trade secrets and you need to be high enough on the food chain to get to know them.

For comparable skill sets, in the industry you earn 2 to 3 times the amount you will make in academia. When I was choosing my PhD adviser, I considered a thesis in particle phenomenology with Professor Rabindra Mohapatra. I had to qualify to be his grad student and after I did that I got to see the fine print of the deal. The entire particle physics group at UMCP (10 professors) had to pull their resources to fund a single research assistant (RA). In comparison, the professors in EE department each had between 10 to 20 RAs due to industry contracts. This turned me off and I picked a better funded adviser. A few years after graduation I was working in the industry and I was in the market for a house. It just happened that professor Mohapatra was selling his house and I got to visit it as a buyer. I did not bought it in the end but already within a few years in industry I had the same buying power as a distinguished full professor in academia.

When you climb the corporate ladder in the industry there are standard steps. You start as an intern and the requirement there is to have potential to grow and to be liked by the group. Then you are a junior engineer who is working under close supervision. When you can work independently in one area you become a senior engineer and a typical salary is around $90K/year.  If you can work across the board in any area, you are a principal engineer. From principle the next step is supervisor where you are responsible for the results of an entire team. Next step is manager who is a supervisor with power to do performance evaluations and make salary decisions. Up to this point the focus is on work and as a manager you get to know the dirty secrets but you still do not have a seat at the big boys table. Next is a director who is an execution machine. The most important skill of a director is to defend his back as peers and people above are out to get him. A director with industry knowledge is a vice president. A VP can run the company but he is not yet vetted from the social part: he is not a member of the C-level club (CEO, COO, CFO). At C-level you are a god for the company and your statements carry legal responsibility. For the people entering the industry, one general word of advice is that the human resource department is never your friend - don't get fooled by their friendliness or lunch events they organize. They are there to prevent the company from being sued and they do the dirty work of firing people - which no manager enjoys.  

I managed to climb all the way to director and VP level, and at every large company I worked the C-level are all crooks-no exceptions. Very smart, very competent, very polished, experts in the art of dissimulation and manipulation, and rotten to the core. Power does corrupt. I came to know countless unbelievable horror stories. 

Now back to physics and academia. One thing I hate was the publish or perish state of fact. Not everyday you have a big breakthrough and 99% of the published papers are utterly useless. People organize in groups citing each other meaningless results, and if your paper is correct most of the referee's comments are about not citing something. When I exited academia I made the decision to come back when I would have something important to say. Coming back turned out to be much much harder than I thought. 

Everything was an uphill battle: first results, gain archive endorsement, first paper, first conference, first teaching assignments. When you are in the system you cannot see how much your adviser is supporting you in your academic career. If you worked in industry and want to come back to academia only because you like physics you will not be successful. The first thing you need is to have a research domain of your own and also to have meaningful  results. What matters the most is what problems you are working on and for this you need good guidance. Good guidance is hard to come by even when you are in academia. I was lucky to have met a remarkable person: Emile Grgin who worked on a research topic from Bohr. Bohr passed this topic to his personal assistant Aage Peterson who worked with Grgin as postdocs at Yeshiva University in the 70s. Grgin switched to industry and I met him as he was retiring interested to make more progress on this topic. I learned the topic and I carried the torch. Lucky for me, to no merit of mine, the area turned out to be a gold mine. So now I was having something meaningful to work on and something meaningful to say and it was time to start the transition back to academia. Also there was no competition in my research area - a wonderful thing.

I might have been a young tiger before in academia but now I was a big nobody as far as academia was concerned. The first hurdle was rising above the large background noise of crackpots. I identified this organization FQXi and I won a third prize there on one of their essay contests. This opened up connections for me and now people would no longer ignore my emails and gave me the cold shoulder. I started blogging for FQXi and this is when I hit the second roadblock. After crackpots there is a layer of charlatans. I ran into the biggest of all Joy Christian. The problem was that he had powerful friends with a lot of clout and fighting Joy blacklisted me and delayed my academia comeback plan by 2-3 years until Joy's credibility was all gone. Finally after wasting in the desert of blacklisting I gained archive endorsement, I started to get invited to conferences, and I started publishing again. I also became a referee on various journals. It was time to start a blog (this one). The blog provided a much needed discipline to work a given set of hours a day on physics. In industry you live under a constant shadow of a deadline and it is very hard to set hours aside in the day to do anything else productive. Now it was time to complete the switch and make money again from a physics job. Here I ran into another large problem. Physics pays peanuts and now I cannot go back and live like a poor grad student anymore: I have a large mortgage to pay as well as college expenses for my kids to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. I needed a side job in the industry to make up the difference, but no job provides that flexibility. The answer was to start my own consultancy company. This is no easy task, but I did have all the knowledge I needed.

So I finally had the first paying job at a university jumping between my company work and my physics duties. Physics was no longer a hobby.  Today I am very busy working over 80 hours a week and I am climbing very rapidly the academic levels. Coming back to academia is a game of building your credibility. A funny observation is that at every level no matter how low there are a lot of politics being played. To me this is very amusing. I know how to read people and get them what they expect from me when they expect it. 

One more observation. Industry is capitalism with the good and the bad. Academia is still run by the rules of a feudal system. There are big established hierarchies which are defended at length without regard for truth. Sadly most people in academia do not seek truth but power. You can see the hierarchy at the conferences on the order and length of time given to the speakers. I found this obscene. In a small world where everybody knows everybody the arrogance of most of the hot shots runs through the roof. There are also scientific crooks who abuse their power for personal gains. There are notable exceptions however. One of the most down to earth nice person who listens to what the lowliest grad student has to say is 't Hooft. I don't agree with his approach to quantum mechanics but I value him as a decent person. Another decent person I admire is Avshalom Elizur. For the record I am not associated with either of them or their groups and I am not praising them for any future gains. I am genuinely impressed by the way they conduct themselves in a sea of feudal system arrogance.

The electromagnetic field

Continuing from last time, today I will talk about the electromagnetic field as a gauge theory.

1. The gauge group

In this case the gauge group is \(U(1)\) - the phase rotations. This group is commutative. This can be determined if we start from Dirac's equation and we demand that the group leaves the Dirac current of probability density:

\(j^\mu = \Psi^\dagger \gamma^0 \gamma^\mu \Psi\)

invariant.

2. The covariant derivative giving rise to the gauge group

Here the covariant derivative takes the form:

\(D_\mu = \partial_\mu - i A_\mu\)

To determine the gauge connection \(A_\mu\) we can substitute this expression in Dirac's equation:

\(i\gamma^\mu D_\mu \Psi = m\Psi\)

and require the equation to be invariant under a gauge transformation:

\(\Psi^{'} = e^{i \chi}\Psi\)

which yields:

\(A^{'}_{\mu} = A_\mu + \partial_\mu \chi\)

This shows that:
- the general gauge field for Dirac's equation is an arbitrary vector field \(A_\mu (x)\)
-The part of the gauge field which compensates for an arbitrary gauge transformation of the Dirac field \(\Psi (x)\) is the gradient of on an arbitrary scalar field.

3. The integrability condition

Here we want to extract a physically observable object out of a given vector field \(A_\mu (x)\). From above it follows that there is no external potential if \(A_\mu = \partial_\mu \chi\) and this is the case if and only if:

\(\partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu = 0\)

4. The curvature

The curvature measures the amount of failure for the integrability condition and by definition is the left-hand side of the equation from above:

\(F_{\mu\nu} = \partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu\)

and this is the electromagnetic field tensor.

5. The algebraic identities

There is only one algebraic identity in this case stemming from the curvature tensor antisymmetry:

\(F_{\mu\nu} +F_{\nu\mu} = 0\)

6. The homogeneous differential equations

If we take the derivative of \(F_{\mu\nu}\) and we do a cyclic sum we obtain:

\(F_{\mu\nu , \lambda} + F_{\lambda\mu , \nu} + F_{\nu\lambda , \mu} = 0\)

which is analogous with the Bianchi identity in general relativity.

This identity can be expressed using the Hodge dual as follows:

\(\partial_\rho {* F}^{\rho\mu} = 0\)

and this is nothing but two of the Maxwell's equations:

\(\nabla \cdot \overrightarrow{B} = 0\)
\(\nabla \times \overrightarrow{E} + \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \overrightarrow{B} = 0\)

7. The inhomogeneous differential equations

If we take the derivative of \(\partial_\beta F^{\alpha\beta}\) we get zero because the F is antisymetric and \(\partial_{\alpha\beta} = \partial_{\beta\alpha}\). and so the vector  \(\beta F^{\alpha\beta}\) is divergenless. We interpret this as a current of a conserved quantity: the source for the electromagnetic field and we write:

\(\partial_\rho F^{\mu\rho} = 4\pi J^\mu\)

where the constant of proportionality comes from recovering Maxwell's theory (recall that last time \(8\pi G\) came from similar arguments.

From this we now get the other two Maxwell's equations:

\(\nabla \cdot \overrightarrow{E} = 4\pi \rho\)
\(\nabla \times \overrightarrow{B} - \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \overrightarrow{E} = 4\pi \overrightarrow{j}\)

Now we can compare general relativity with electromagnetism:

Coordinate transformation - Gauge transformation
Affine connection \(\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\rho\sigma}\) - Gauge connection \(iA_\mu\)
Gravitational potential \(\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\rho\sigma}\) - electromagnetic potential \(A_\mu\)
Curvature tensor \(R^{\alpha}_{\beta\gamma\delta}\) - electromagnetic field \(F_{\mu\nu}\)
No gravitation \(R^{\alpha}_{\beta\gamma\delta} = 0\) - no electromagnetic field \(F_{\mu\nu} = 0\)