## September 8, 2009

### Interactive Science Symposium

#### Posted by Urs Schreiber

The German Center for Media and Interactivity is organizing a

Symposium

Title: Communication Formats and their Dynamics in Digital Science Communication (program pdf)

Sept. 9 - 11, 2009

on the usage of digital web media among scientists. If you can read German, you can find a detailed description here.

I am being asked to participate in a roundtable discussion tomorrow evening, representing the $n$-Category Café.

Posted at September 8, 2009 5:51 PM UTC

TrackBack URL for this Entry:   http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/cgi-bin/MT-3.0/dxy-tb.fcgi/2055

### first evening

Just arrived, chatted a bit with some participants and organizers.

I learned, of which i had no idea, that the $n$-Category Café and now also the $n$Lab are being observed closely by some social scientists who research how science is performed in the light of new web technology.

In particular Thomas Gloning, professor for German language in Giessen, and his group, notably Anita Bader, who is working on a PhD on Dynamics of forms of exchange in digital science communication, have been monitoring various science weblogs for a year now and analyzing their dynamics. (I’ll try to see if I can get hold of links to their work and talks later.)

The $n$-Category Cafe is, as they emphasized, one of their preferred study objects. They are well-informed about what is going on here and take great interest when for instance John’s blog entries on pseudo-science make it into the media.

Not only that: to my pleasant surprise I learned that Anita Bader has had a close eye on how we started the $n$Lab wiki and how it evolves in its usage as a new means besides the blog.

Little did I know (nothing in fact) that we here are not the only ones wondering about – compare Andrew Stacey’s and Toby Bartels’ discussion on the $n$Forum – all the questions that the existence if the nLab brings with it.

Made me wonder if one couldn’t maybe think up a way by which people who are professionally researching such social questions were directly and actively involved in taking care of organizational questions of a nascent science wiki. Maybe as a kind of advisory board. Maybe one to which one would appeal in cases of conflict, such as Andrew Stacey keeps warning about.

Now on to the first talk, and then our Roundtable discussion.

Posted by: Urs Schreiber on September 9, 2009 6:29 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: first evening

Spooky!

Posted by: Bruce Bartlett on September 9, 2009 7:10 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: first evening

Very cool, but not too surprising. Good for them for noticing :)

Posted by: Eric Forgy on September 9, 2009 7:12 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: first evening

It’s indeed spooky discovering that our every move is being watched by sociologists. I feel like a bacterium in a Petri dish who looks up and sees…

… yes, you, Anita! Hi!

Posted by: John Baez on September 10, 2009 10:18 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: first evening

I thought this was the whole point of having a blog — to be watched by the whole wide world.

Posted by: Anon on September 11, 2009 1:58 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: Interactive Science Symposium

Posted by: Jon Awbrey on September 9, 2009 9:44 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### next morning

In very brief summary the roundtable discussion last night maybe demonstrated that there are various interesting promising and also successful models for new web based science communication in the natural sciences (including math in that, for the purpose of this comment) - in particular the model of open access publishing where some remarkable successes were reported, while in the humanities and in parts in the social sciences the web is largely regarded more as a threat to the self-understanding of the field than a useful tool. This might be related to another general aspect which kept coming up: that the new possibility of online communication highlights existing differences in discussion cultures among different fields.

Now, next morning, first thing to notice is that the wireless access has broken down and one sees everyone cursing over their notebooks. Maybe a bit ironic to be forced offline while hearing presentations on how even Twitter is beginning to being used for serious science communication (namely apparently for keeping scientific groups together and synchronized: on which conference are you, what’s the state of your part on our article draft, etc. )

Then the first talk. The $n$-Category café keeps being mentioned as one of the interesting real-life examples. After Prof. Gloning in yesterdays roundtable discussion now also Gerd Fritz, professor for linguistic in Giessen, in his talk emphasizes what a useful and interesting resource for their research this interview by Bruce Bartlett has been.

Parts of this interview had been the topic of the roundtable discussion yesterday. At some point apparently John Baez said something about me using the blog to spread ideas around. I could provide a few examples for when that turned out to be have been very useful and fruitful and again there was a discussion about how that is a natural sciences or math thing which can’t work in the humanities, where the idea of spreading an idea before having written it up apparently is regarded as unthinkable.

That made me think of Deligne’s recollection of his time with Grothendieck, which Peter Woit recently highlighred here.

Anita Bader gave her talk on her PhD research that I mentioned. Among other things, she presented a graphic showing the activity of the usenet usegroup sci.physics.research that John originally initiated and ran and she analyzed what happened around the time that the $n$-Category Café was created.

I was very much involved back then and knew these things from the inside perspective, but it was certainly interesting to see this analyzed with concrete numbers. The spr newsgroup activity peaked in 2003. Then in 2005 when the $n$-Café finally branched off activity had dropped to 1/3 of that value.

There is a long story to be told here for what exactly happened, which probably those researching such group activity might be interested in. We chatted a bit more about this over coffee. It fits into one other general theme that kept coming up: with all the talk about web technology etc. it remains a simple fact that archaic mechanisms of group dynamics have a huge impact on what happens with science communication on the web.

Over coffee I also had a chance to chat with Michael Nentwich, director of the Institute for technology Assessment and Systems analysis. He wrote a book on “Cyber Science” already seven years ago. I haven’t seen it yet, but he says he has a whole chapter on the Café-metaphor in scientific and online communication.

Now I am already at the train station again, on my way back. Will hence have to miss the second 1.5 days of the conference, unfortunately. Tomorrow the talks will concentrate on weblogs as such.

Posted by: Urs Schreiber on September 10, 2009 11:53 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: next morning

Oh, and I forgot to mention one thing that I found personally most remarkable: Anita Bader presented slides on the process of creating the $n$Lab in parallel to the $n$Café. On one slide she had a table that summarized exactly and in detail what I kept thinking the role of these two installations should be: the blog for discussion and developing of ideas, the wiki for storing and archiving stable outcome of such discussion.

I think she said this even better than I ever had. Will need to get hold of these slides and put them on the $n$Lab About page!

On that matter: Anita Bader’s PhD research on this is supposed to appear published in about a year. Currently, if you want to see anything the only option is to have an eye on their blog.

Posted by: Urs Schreiber on September 10, 2009 12:01 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: next morning

On one slide she had a table that summarized exactly and in detail what I kept thinking the role of these two installations should be.

Good! We could do with some more input into the discussion. I’m not so sure this description on the home page captures things:

…this place is like the library, or alchemist’s laboratory, in the back room of the n-Category Café. You come here to work and go there to chat.

For one thing quite a lot of chatting these days is going on in the pages of nLab. In fact, some of what went on previously at the Café now takes place there. (Mind you that’s a change to be found in physical libraries – we have to have special quiet areas now as silent reading is no longer the norm!)

Then I don’t agree with the work/chat distinction anyway, unless it is meant that ‘chat’ is only leisurely talking. But that isn’t my idea of what the Café’s for.

Posted by: David Corfield on September 10, 2009 3:16 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: next morning

I’m not so sure this description on the home page captures things:

Right, it doesn’t. At the moment maybe the best effort to capture things is our $n$Forum discussion. I was thinking about linking to that from HomePage and About.

That mainly as a hack for not having the time and energy to write an essay summing things up as discussed. I half-way got the impression that maybe at least Andrew is waiting for me to do something like that. But I can’t at the moment.

For one thing quite a lot of chatting these days is going on in the pages of nLab. In fact, some of what went on previously at the Café now takes place there.

Yes, and the $n$Lab is not well suited for having long discussion there. We experienced that with the long discussion at [[category theory]] and [[graph]], I think. Discussion needs a threading software such as the comments here or at the Forum.

At the same time, various contributors keep posting detailed technical material here without creating a corresponding entry on the $n$Lab for. Just happening so in the recent active thread.

I think both behaviour patterns are making insufficient good use of the $n$Café/$n$Lab environment. That’s why I will keep saying:

Come here to discuss/chat, go there to work.

Work out notes there, discuss them here.

It’s not a descriptive statement, but an imperative one. :-)

Then I don’t agree with the work/chat distinction anyway,

Okay, so let us know why not. What are you imagining instead?

Posted by: Urs Schreiber on September 10, 2009 4:53 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: next morning

The worry with ‘work/chat’ is just terminological. I wouldn’t want to give the impression that chatting is not working. ‘Write/discuss’ might fit better.

But anyway it may prove hard to move all the ‘discuss’ part out of nLab. I think people enjoy having discussions there right up close to the material they’ve written.

Posted by: David Corfield on September 10, 2009 5:21 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: next morning

I think people enjoy having discussions there right up close to the material they’ve written.

I'm one of those people. Where is Andrew to tell us his rules about what to discuss where? I'm pretty sure that one of them was to discuss the content of specific entries in query boxes at those entries.

This also fits in with the idea of putting incomplete material on the Lab and working it out there. If we tell people to chat on the Café rather than on the Lab, then how can they do this collaboratively?

Posted by: Toby Bartels on September 10, 2009 6:56 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: next morning

This also fits in with the idea of putting incomplete material on the Lab and working it out there.

That’s a good point, of course. Agreed.

Posted by: Urs Schreiber on September 10, 2009 6:59 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: next morning

David wrote:

The worry with ‘work/chat’ is just terminological. I wouldn’t want to give the impression that chatting is not working. ‘Write/discuss’ might fit better.

I’m the one who wrote ‘chat’, and of course I meant it ironically, like 50% of everything I say — except my technical statements about math and physics.

You only need take one look at the $n$-Café to see that what we’re doing is not ‘chat’ in the sense of idle gossip. But I like the mood of a friendly café, so I prefer the phrase ‘chat’ to something like ‘engage in technical discussions leading to collaborative research’.

No doubt my attempt at humor will ultimately be eliminated as the $n$-Café and $n$-Lab become ever more important, ponderous and ultimately bureaucratic.

Posted by: John Baez on September 10, 2009 10:14 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: next morning

John, don’t give up ;)

Posted by: Eugene Lerman on September 19, 2009 2:25 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: next morning

I still get the impression that people use the nLab more to “publish” then to “work”. People seem to be reluctant to try working out stuff on the nLab and prefer to just contribute content they are already comfortable with. Maybe it is “Wikipedia-itus”.

Maybe a campaign to encourage incomplete work on the nLab would be warranted. So far the encouragement has been more along the lines of (referring to a comment on the n-cafe), “That is a great idea. You should put it on the nLab!”

I suspect a lot of people who would like to contribute find themselves thinking, “I need to work out this idea so that I can post it to the nLab.” They are not thinking, “Let me go jot some ideas down on the nLab to help me get this straightened out.”

Posted by: Eric Forgy on September 10, 2009 5:42 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: next morning

Discussion needs a threading software such as the comments here or at the Forum.

Unfortunately, the Froum does not have threading software like the comments here. Unless there's some feature that I don't know (and nobody has used), all that it can do is to keep separate conversations in separate threads, the same way that separate query boxes on a Lab page work.

In fact, it's possible to write things in a query box in a threaded manner, mimicing what the Café does automatically, like they do at Wikipedia; we mostly haven't been doing that at the Lab, however.

Posted by: Toby Bartels on September 10, 2009 6:59 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: next morning

Thanks for this, Urs, this is fascinating stuff! Also, it gave me an opportunity to reread that fun interview with Bruce!

Posted by: Tim Silverman on September 10, 2009 1:32 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: Open Access Publishing

Thanks for a fascinating report!

The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Publishing Coalition (SPARC) is a useful resource on the Open Access movement and puts out a monthly newsletter to keep up with current developments.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey on September 10, 2009 4:02 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: 2-Cultural Divergences

Re: “In very brief summary the roundtable discussion last night maybe demonstrated that there are various interesting promising and also successful models for new web based science communication in the natural sciences … where some remarkable successes were reported, while in the humanities and in parts in the social sciences the web is largely regarded more as a threat to the self-understanding of the field than a useful tool. This might be related to another general aspect which kept coming up: that the new possibility of online communication highlights existing differences in discussion cultures among different fields.”

Susan Awbrey and I explored themes bearing on the persistence of this 2-Cultural Divide in these papers:

Conference Version: Organizations of Learning or Learning Organizations

Published Version: Conceptual Barriers to Creating Integrative Universities

Posted by: Jon Awbrey on September 10, 2009 9:22 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: Interactive Science Symposium

Eric wrote:

I still get the impression that people use the nLab more to “publish” then to “work”. People seem to be reluctant to try working out stuff on the nLab and prefer to just contribute content they are already comfortable with.

I noticed that you and Andrew were discussing this on the $n$-Forum. I seem to recall that he pointed out that he was a ‘professional mathematician’ — someone who earns his living by publishing results — and thus wants there to be policies in place that deal with research done publicly on the $n$Lab.

You may resist this, but ultimately it needs to be addressed, one way or another.

Since the $n$Lab has been in operation I have been very busy finishing off papers, mostly with grad students. I wouldn’t do this sort of work on the $n$Lab until there are better policies in place for what to do when someone takes an idea from the $n$Lab and tries to publish it.

Urs has some ideas that are so big nobody can steal them: it’d be like a shoplifter trying to sneak out of a store carrying a dishwasher. Similarly, I feel no worries putting my work in progress with James Dolan on the $n$Lab. These ideas are so big — and so little of them has been made publicly visible yet — that I’m not afraid of anyone stealing them. But I don’t feel the same relaxed attitude with the smaller projects that I’m doing with grad students. Perhaps I’m being paranoid — but just as parents worry more about their kids than themselves, academics feel (and should feel) protective about their grad students.

Another issue will become more pressing when I write my first book on categories and $n$-categories. If people help me write it on the $n$Lab, do they become coauthors? Do we have to work out an agreement ahead of time?

There’s an interesting case where someone took some ideas I explained on the $n$-Café and developed them into a very nice paper. Luckily this person was very honorable: he credited me extensively, and now he’s asking me to be a coauthor. More on this as it develops.

But not everyone is so honorable.

Posted by: John Baez on September 10, 2009 10:39 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: Interactive Science Symposium

I wouldn’t do this sort of work on the $n$Lab until there are better policies in place for what to do when someone takes an idea from the $n$Lab and tries to publish it.

I don't understand how the $n$Lab could have a policy to forbid that. It is already forbidden.

To be sure, the Lab could try to adopt a policy to allow that, something that clearly states

By submitting ideas here, you agree that they are up for grabs, and anybody may subsequently claim credit for them in a peer-reviewed publication.

I'm not sure if people would buy that, but we could try it if for some reason we wanted to.

But if people are submitting things to journals that they didn't come up with, but instead that they read on some web page somewhere, then it's the journal that needs a policy to prevent that. Not that we (and the arXiv, and the various math blogs, etc) can't try to work with journals on that (some of them are probably pretty ignorant about what appears on the 'Net), but it's already true, in the absence of any policy of ours, that to claim credit for an idea that one read on the Lab (or on any other web page, or learnt about through email, or overheard in a literal café, etc) is plagiarism.

Posted by: Toby Bartels on September 10, 2009 11:39 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: Interactive Science Symposium

Isn’t the fear of being scooped, rather than actual plagiarism? I.e. you outline a program, describe some ideas for carrying out it, note some dead ends along the way, and then, based on this, somebody else does the work of actually finishing off the program and writing the paper. I.e. all your work of having the vision and then setting stuff up and doing initial exploratory work doesn’t get you any benefit because the actual constructions and theorems that people want to read about get published in somebody else’s version?

Posted by: Tim Silverman on September 10, 2009 11:56 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: Interactive Science Symposium

Good point, Tim. On the other hand, this line

I don’t understand how the nLab could have a policy to forbid that.

still holds. But maybe somebody has an answer to that?

Posted by: Toby Bartels on September 11, 2009 12:02 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: Interactive Science Symposium

I suppose it depends on how compelling the program described is; Klein’s Erlangen program still echoes (viz. the Corfield 2-Erlangen program, if I may call it that) and “Langlands program” strikes me as something of a code-word for “give me funding! hear my lectures!” the way it gets used most often, but at least everyone now knows the name Langlands.

So, if you write a *really nifty* half-baked suggestion in the nLab and everyone hears about it before anyone thinks of a completion, then we’ll all know to call it Urs’s in the end, right?

Posted by: some guy on the street on September 13, 2009 6:05 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: Interactive Science Symposium

Plagiarism is bad enough, but even more insidious is nostrification. I guess it’s up to all of us to blow the whistle when we recognize something from the n-Lab or cafe getting into print without aknowledgement.

Posted by: jim stasheff on September 11, 2009 1:54 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: Interactive Science Symposium

There is, of course, an issue with how acknowledgement is supposed to work in this situation, where the authorship of nLab articles is ambiguous. That, at least, is something we might make progress on resolving.

Posted by: Tim Silverman on September 11, 2009 2:11 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: Interactive Science Symposium

One model I’ve proposed is to not worry about who specifically to reference, but rather just reference the page noting the date or you can actually link to a specific revision of a page. Just click “History” at the bottom of any page and you’ll see what I mean.

In the event that you have worked out some ideas on the nLab and wish to publish them, at that point, you go off the grid and write the paper and submit it as you normally would with a reference to the early work done on the nLab (as outlined above).

I don’t think the nLab is necessarily a publication medium, i.e. you may not want to write the journal-ready paper on the public nLab, and then submit it. That is certainly possible and is, I believe, one of the original motivations for Jacques to use instiki, but that would probably be better done on a personal wiki web area than the main nLab grid.

The important thing as I see it is to reference the nLab in such a way that a reader of the article has access to the exact version of the page you are referring to. This is possible with the “History” feature.

You are probably aware that John is likely the first (or one of the first considering those at this symposium may have him beat) to write a paper with an actual reference to the nLab, so he is probably a good example to follow.

Posted by: Eric Forgy on September 11, 2009 6:02 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: Interactive Science Symposium

There is, of course, an issue with how acknowledgement is supposed to work in this situation, where the authorship of nLab articles is ambiguous. That, at least, is something we might make progress on resolving.

Yeah; in principle, one should look at the article's history and see who wrote the stuff that you're looking at (and make sure that they didn't write that it's based on a blog post or something), but in practice, it would be good if we could make finding that information easy.

Posted by: Toby Bartels on September 11, 2009 6:10 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: Interactive Science Symposium

Jim, can you explain what ‘nostrification’ means in this context? I tried looking it up online, but everything I’ve found defines it as something like ‘the recognition of a foreign university degree’.

Posted by: Tom Leinster on September 11, 2009 5:50 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: Interactive Science Symposium

I’m Tim, not Jim, but from my meagre acquaintance with Latin I’d guess it means something like “making it ours”. In which case I’d think denostrification would be more of a problem. . But I guess it depends on whose point of view you’re looking at it from!

Posted by: Tim Silverman on September 11, 2009 6:12 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: Interactive Science Symposium

Hilbert’s often accused of nostrification.

In fact the word (or at least German equivalent) appears to be coined by his students.

Posted by: David Corfield on September 12, 2009 11:49 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: Interactive Science Symposium

Yes, that link captures it precisely.

Posted by: jim stasheff on September 12, 2009 1:09 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: Interactive Science Symposium

I was hoping someone would ask. The meaning I intended would mean, in our context, have so thoroughly soaked up content from the n-Lab (or a lecture or a face-to-face conversation) that one forgets the source and thinks to have had the original thought oneself. I was once guilty as charged.

Posted by: jim stasheff on September 12, 2009 1:06 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: Interactive Science Symposium

But that happens anyway! The good thing about the nLab (and blogs) is that you can go back and look at the conversations afterwards and see how an idea emerged and (roughly) who did what.

The danger that an idea will become more associated with its populariser than with its inventor is probably unavoidable.

Posted by: Tim Silverman on September 12, 2009 1:53 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: Interactive Science Symposium

We must always remember that on Tlön, the subject of knowledge is one and eternal. Within the sphere of literature, too, the idea of the single subject is all-powerful. Books are rarely signed, nor does the concept of plagiarism exist: It has been decided that all books are the work of a single author who is timeless and anonymous.

— J.L. Borges, Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius

Posted by: Jon Awbrey on September 12, 2009 5:10 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

### Re: Interactive Science Symposium

Most fundamnetal and “relatively stable” physical systems go without valid descriptions (based on the “so called” laws of physics) eg the stable, definitive, discrete spectral-orbital properties of general:
nuclei
atoms with more than 3-electrons
molecules
molecular shapes
crystal properties (the high critical tempertaure predicted by BCS has been exceeded) etc
and
the relatively stability (apparently stable for billions of years)of the many-bodied solar system, also has no valid description.
Nonetheless the attempts (by the physics and math communities) at the descriptions of these systems is to use ever more general techniques which are believed to be able to describe all aspects of all details of physical possibility. (Perhaps most of these details are irrelevant).
Perhaps the direction of how physical description should proceed should be toward greater simplification and in a much more restricted context (as Coperniucus simpified the model of Ptolemy).
For example, the geometrization theorem of Thurston-Perelman may suggest that general shapes evolve towards stable discrete hyperbolic shapes over long time intervals (in 3-space).
The main structure of physical description of material systems’ stable spectral properties should be based on the very stable discrete hyperbolic shapes related to the discrete subgroups of the isometry and Hermitian-invariant classical Lie groups [SO(n), SO(n,1), SO and SU] ie the stable material spectral systems settle into such stable discrete hyperbolic shapes [in 3-space they would be hyperbolic 2-dimensional space-forms], and furthermore, the over-all containing space (which contains existence) (can) be higher-dimensional, but again based on stable discrete hyperbolic shapes. The higher dimensions are hidden due to the values of physical constants, where “dark matter” is not seen becasue of the natural size of interacting systems related to “dark matter” (ie observable dynamics) are of the size of the solar-system (and this is due to the values of physical constants which relate two adjacent dimensional levels to one another, [hypothesize that something similar to the van der Waals forces are smaller versions of the forces of dark matter]).
That is, things are not fundamentally random, rather the stable spectral properties of material systems are based in geometry … (though the apparent [and observed] fundamental randomness is a property which can be derived from the models of interations of mirco-systems in the new descriptive structrue based on linear, discrete, geometrically separable models of physical systems contained in simple metric-spaces, where Euclidean discrete shapes are continuous and thus can be used in dynamic descriptions to allow for both apparent fundmaental randomness as well as non-linearity to enter into the (details of the) dynamic properties of physical systems)… and the stable shapes are the discrete hyperbolic shapes which (when projected down to 3-space) identify the stable nuclei, general atoms, etc, and they also explain the (apparent) stability of the solar system.
But the currently (accepted) laws of physics cannot be used to describe the stability of fundamentally stable physical systems

yet it goes on-and-on about issues which are only related to the particle-collision model of bombs, where “the collision probabilities of broken-up components” determine the rate of transition from one relatively stable system to another relatively stable system, ie the chemical model of interacting relatively stable molecules by means of the probabilities of molecular collisions (the true focus of “particle-physics”), and spherically symmetric singularities of non-linear systems (in bomb engineering this is the model of the singularity of a very high energy particle collision) whose non-linear descriptions which are not useful in regard to practical creativity.
General relativity will never (through non-linear descriptions) identify the cause of the solar system stability.
Then the physics-math communities try to unify these bomb engineering models through string theory, and quantum gravity, etc. (all pursued with a great deal of superior self-importance [as by a set of people who believe they are in possession of an absolute truth] but rather pursued by a bunch of fools, who have been tricked by the military interests of the society).
Note: Spectral models of physical systems only work on systems whose descriptions are based in the geometry of classical physics, eg electric circuits, which may couple to properties of quantum systems, but the descriptions of these circuits do not depend on the laws of quantum physics, since quantum physics and particle physics do not describe any physical system (which is not a part of a transient state of a probabilistic transition) in a useful way, ie related to practical creativity, other than through “How Bosons and Fermions fill discrete states” of quantum systems, but the discrete states of these quantum systems have no valid description based on the laws of quantum physics.

Posted by: banny on June 28, 2011 6:14 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Post a New Comment