Kris Carlson

Just another weblog

Nobel Prize controversy over Mendeleev in 1905, 1906

From World Scientific, a superb publisher based in Singapore:


4. The Periodic Table and the Missed Nobel Prize
by Ulf Lagerkvist (Gothenburg University, Sweden) & edited by Erling Norrby (The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Sweden)

A centrepiece of this newly released book is Lagerkvist’s account of what he believes was a gross injustice done to Mendeleev in his being denied the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1905 and again in 1906.
Delving into the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ detailed records concerning the nominations, Lagerkvist reveals the judging criteria and the often heated and prejudicial arguments favoring and demeaning the contributions of the competing contenders of those years.
The book has received commendable reviews from Nobel laureates, Prof. Sir Alan Klug, Prof. Emeritus Paul Berg and Prof. Hideki Shirakawa.

The Periodic Table and a Missed Nobel Prize will be available from October.

September 26, 2012 Posted by | Biography, History of Science | Leave a comment

Ramon y Cajal on the Love of science

In a book Advice for a Young Investigator Cajal wrote: “As with the lover who discovers new perfections every day in the woman he adores, he who studies an object with an endless sense of pleasure finally discerns interesting details and unusual properties…. It is not without reason that all great observers are skillful at drawing.”

–In Nerve Endings: The Discovery of the Synapse by Richard Rapport, a biography of Santiago Ramon y Cajal (1852-1934), pioneering neural anatomist. Quoted by frequent MathGroup (Mathematica) participant, David Park.

September 29, 2010 Posted by | History of Science, Neuroscience | , , | Leave a comment

Wolfram on the generative Rule for our physical universe

The quest for a Rule that would generate our entire universe is a modern, information-theoretic version of unified field theory or a general, compact theory of the physical universe. Ed Fredkin came up with the idea that there could be a cellular automaton (CA) rule for the physical universe (or as I would put it, the currently-known physical microcosm). But he and Wolfram, and others such as Toffoli and Margolus, and Berkovich, have failed to find it. The early promise of, e.g., the Game of Life, was misleading, as often happens in science.

Wolfram did a more thorough exploration of the CA rule universe than anyone, and organized the field. He then generalized the generative CA Rule idea into mathematical re-write systems, but did not get much cohesive progress toward simulating the physical microcosm there, either. Part of what makes these domains interesting is they are chaotic, in the sense that neighboring parameter settings yield widely divergent results.

Anyway, I wonder what Wolfram means here and how it relates to the conjecture about parallel universes as an interpretation of quantum theory. I think, tho, one general problem for all unified physical theories is they underemphasize (and ignore) the historical trend toward the expansion of our horizons. In other words, history implies that the physical microcosm and macrocosm are far larger than we currently comprehend.

A second

“Still, I think it’s quite possible that we’ll be lucky—and be able to find our universe out in the computational universe. And it’ll be an exciting moment—being able to sort of hold in our hand a little program that is our universe. Of course, then we start wondering why it’s this program, and not another one. And getting concerned about Copernican kinds of issues.

Actually, I have a sneaking suspicion that the final story will be more bizarre than all of that. That there is some generalization of the Principle of Computational Equivalence that will somehow actually mean that with appropriate interpretation, sort of all conceivable universes are in precise detail, our actual universe, and its complete history.”

“The idea of Wolfram|Alpha was to see just how far we can get today with the goal of making the world’s knowledge computable. How much of the world’s data can we curate? How many of the methods and models from science and other areas can we encode? Can we let people access all this using their own free-form human language? And can we show them the results in a way that they can readily understand? Well, I wasn’t sure how difficult it would be. Or whether in the first decade of the 21st century it’d be possible at all. But I’m happy to say that it worked out much better than I’d expected.”

“And by using ideas from NKS—and a lot of hard work—we’ve been able to get seriously started on the problem of understanding the free-form language that we humans walk up to a computer and type in. It’s a different problem than the usual natural-language processing problem. Where one has to understand large chunks of complete text, say on the web. Here we have to take small utterances—sloppily written questions—and see whether one can map them onto the precise symbolic forms that represent the computable knowledge we know.”

Here Wolfram gives an example of the ‘new kind of science’ approach at work:

“In fact, increasingly in Mathematica we are using algorithms that we were not constructed step-by-step by humans, but are instead just found by searching the computational universe. And that’s also been a key methodology in developing Wolfram|Alpha. But going forward, it’s something I think we’ll be able to use on the fly.”

I recommend you read the entire address. There is much more beyond what I excerpted here.

June 21, 2010 Posted by | Artificial Intelligence, Complexity, Culture, History of Science, Mathematics | Leave a comment

A view of Newton’s mistakes

“The greatest of all mathematicians, those who have discovered the greatest quantities of mathematical truths, are also those who have published the greatest numbers of lacunary proofs, insufficiently qualified assertions, and flat mistakes. By attempting to make natural philosophy into a part of mathematics, Newton relinquished the diplomatic immunity granted to nonmathematical philsophers, chemists, psychologists, etc., and entered the area where an error is an error even if it is Newton’s error; in fact, all the more so because it is Newton’s error.

“The mistakes made by a great mathematician are of two kinds: first, trivial slips that anyone can correct, and, second, titanic failures reflecting the scale of the struggle wich the great mathematician waged. Failures of this latter kind are as important as successes, for they give rise to major discoveries by other mathematicians.”*

This is an interesting quotation unto itself, but it makes me think of how Eric Temple Bell characterized Leibniz’ vision of a calculus ratiocinator, a mathematical logic. Instead of arguing in words, we would say, “Gentlemen, let us calculate,” i.e., use mathematical logic to determine the truth or falsehood of what is under discussion.

Under Stephen Wolfram’s New Kind of Science empirical exploration of mathematics via computer, this translates into “Ladies and gentlemen, let us simulate.” In other words, decide truth or falsehood via a computer simulation.

*C. Truesdell, “Reactions of Late Baroque Mechanics to Success, Conjecture, Error, and Failure in Newton’s Principia,” in The Texas Quarterly, The Annus Mirabilis of Sir Isaac Newton Tricentennial Celebration, Vol X, No 3 (Autumn 1967).

© 2009 Kristen W. Carlson

September 18, 2009 Posted by | History of Science | , , , , , , , | 2 Comments


%d bloggers like this: