This is applicable also to academic success, eh? Asians appear to have a tremendous work ethic which yields said success, a work ethic which I my (non-Asian)self did not possess at a more tender age. In my “older age” I possess a significant repository of perseverance. Would that I could go back and play the congenially-encouraging and -motivating “parent” to myself (not having had a particularly intellectual parent, who was rather inclined to direct toward me sentiments to the effect of having my nose in a book).

It strikes me that there is a rather concerted effort among certain non-Asian Amuricuns who seem to work rather hard at stereotyping academically-outstanding Asians as not “creative” or “innovative,” as compared to these certain non-Asian Amuricuns – leave it to them to label an academic work ethic as somehow a liability.

]]>The data show dynamics (month long peaks) and I hear that they can exclude nearby impacts. That means Mars is biologically and/or geologically active!

]]>But, I’m sorry to be such a downer, my problem with the first two is that they are designed to be so. There is a yearly industry of them, and it will remain so as long as basic quantum physics is as unconstrained as it is.

Both are typical examples.

The first story stems from those who want to reify “information”. They find a lot of formal correspondences between different quantum physics phenomena. But those correspondences don’t signify anything as long as “information” in quantum physics is a mere unitarity constraint. (Or in other words, quantum probabilities has to sum to 1.)

E.g. uncertainty comes out of observation on the wavefunction, it is a Fourier decomposition property of finite wavepackets containing conjugate variables. “the uncertainty relation between position and momentum arises because the expressions of the wavefunction in the two corresponding orthonormal bases in Hilbert space are Fourier transforms of one another (i.e., position and momentum are conjugate variables).” [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle ]

While quantum field theory show by way of relativity that the quantum field is the solution to the apparent “wave or particle” picture. “A QFT treats particles as excited states of an underlying physical field, so these are called field quanta. … Quantum field theory thus provides a unified framework for describing “field-like” objects (such as the electromagnetic field, whose excitations are photons) and “particle-like” objects (such as electrons, which are treated as excitations of an underlying electron field), so long as one can treat interactions as “perturbations” of free fields.” [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory ]

The second story is a model of Bohm’s pilot wave theory for quantum mechanics. The problem isn’t to find such a classical model, the problem is that it breaks down in a relativistic context. That us why we have quantum field theory instead.

And FWIW, 2-3 sigma effects aka “hints” come and go all the time in particle physics. Such “look elsewhere” effects of data fishing is why they use 5 sigma and not 3 sigma for declaring an observation that tests the standard particle or cosmological model.

]]>/@

]]>