The Dirac delta doesn't discount

-
I took this course in Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Computation last term; it needed some serious effort (what's i? don't ask Lacan, please) but it was a lot of fun. Umesh Vazirani was a fine lecturer as well, and in the end the whole experience sold me on online courses (at least for subjects with mathematical content; on Development Economics, my inner jury is still out). 

As I worked through the course and read some of the supplementary material, I returned to my childhood hero Richard Feynman and ran into some of his great lectures on YouTube; here's one from 1964 at Cornell. (Fellow Cornellians: observe that Uris Hall is thankfully missing from the opening sequence; it didn't exist then.)

Man, what a teacher. The greatest ever.

I was also introduced to the bra-ket notation of Paul Dirac. Elegant stuff: a perfect example of how good notation can both serve as a mnemonic and as a simplifier of tedious computations. (In economics I have also seen it change the results, but that's another, less interesting story.) 

Dirac was by all accounts one of the greatest theoretical physicists ever. He won the Nobel Prize at the age of 31 "for the discovery of new and productive forms of atomic theory". Then young Dirac headed off to the Nobel banquet and delivered the following disquisition on economics:

"[W]e have an economic system which tries to maintain an equality of value between two things, which it would be better to recognize from the beginning as of unequal value. These two things are the receipt of a single payment (say 100 crowns) and the receipt of a regular income (say 3 crowns a year) all through eternity...May I ask you to trace out for yourselves how all the obscurities become clear, if one assumes from the beginning that a regular income is worth incomparably more, in fact infinitely more, in the mathematical sense, than any single payment?" (From Dirac's biography, The Strangest Man, by Graham Farmelo. Highly recommended btw.)

Coming from a physics genius, this is quite stunning in its stupidity. The most charitable thing I can say about the bloke is that he certainly wasn't a hyperbolic discounter. (Never mind.) I find particularly telling the following observations: (a) how winning the Nobel prize appears to confer intellectual "rights" over other disciplines that one just don't have the ability to exercise, but more importantly (b) how fundamentally "intuition" differs from field to field, so that a genius in one area can be a blithering idiot in another.

My utter awe of Paul Dirac came down by a couple of notches (small notches, granted).

Postscript: the above is an updated version of some notes in Facebook that I published in 2012. A couple of the comments were very interesting and I reproduce them here:

  • Michael Chwe Of course, some physicists are great intellects, but I think our overall social awe of the field has a lot to do with the PR surrounding the atomic bomb, etc.
    August 11, 2012 at 10:53am · Like
  • Michael Chwe Hi Debraj---you should take a look at the following paper by William Press and Freeman Dyson, both very distinguished, on the repeated prisoners' dilemma. I think that most of the paper is wrong.
    August 11, 2012 at 10:54am · 

  • Abhay Puri He would not be the only physicist to have struggled with economics.
    Planck is believed to have said to Keynes that he had thought of studying Economics but didn't because it was too difficult. Some might mischievously attribute this to properties of the dismal science but according to Hilbert, even physics is too difficult for physicists 
    August 11, 2012 at 11:54am · 
  • Debraj Ray Hi Michael, I'll definitely look at the Press-Dyson paper. But having no clue about discounting is of a different order of magnitude. By the way, I have been reading some (very basic) quantum mechanics so there is little doubt in my mind about how smart these guys are.
    August 11, 2012 at 5:33pm · 
  • Debraj Ray Abhay, the Planck line to Keynes sounds like a polite nod from P to K! As for Hilbert, he's probably right because the short-cuts these physicists too were astounding (but in the end, apparently correct...).
    August 11, 2012 at 5:35pm · 
  • Abhay Puri Keynes polite nod back to Planck goes: 
    "Professor Planck of Berlin,     Berlin, the famous originator of the Quantum Theory, once remarked to me that in early life he, had thought of studying economics, but had found it too difficult ! Professor Planck could easily master the whole corpus of mathematical economics in a few days. He did not mean that! But the amalgam of logic and intuition and the wide knowledge of facts, most of which are not precise, which is required for economic interpretation in its highest form, is, quite truly, overwhelmingly difficult for those whose gift mainly consists in the power to imagine and pursue to their furthest points the implications and prior conditions of comparatively simple facts which are known with a high degree of precision." 

    Not much of that seems right to me ... but then I'm not an economist. Or a physicist  
    But I love the phrasing anyway.

    Btw, I believe Dirac was often contentious on /any/ subject in his non-mathematical 
    expression. He's stark about poetry, too for example.
    August 11, 2012 at 9:34pm · Like

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nit-Piketty

-
A Comment on Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty First Century [For a pdf version with an appendix, click  here .] Thomas Piketty’s heart is definitely in the right place. Capital in the Twenty First Century addresses the great question of our times: the phenomenon of persistent and rising inequality. Piketty has amassed data — both from a motley collection of sources and from his own empirical work — that shows how inequality has not just been high, but on the rise. Piketty purports to provide an integrated explanation of it all. Paul Krugman calls it “the unified field theory of inequality.” Comparisons to Marx’s great Capital abound (perhaps not entirely unsolicited). Even in this quick-moving bite-hungry world, everyone is still cheering, weeks after the English translation has appeared. That’s pretty amazing. Amazing, but at another level, unsurprising. We’ve been handed a Messiah — in the form of a sizable tome that contains the laws of capitalism, yes, Laws
Read more

The Universal Basic Share

-
Universal basic income, or UBI for those acronymically minded, is in the news these days, along with other brilliant post-modern inventions such as Brexit or Trump. Unlike these other luminaries, though, UBI is a genuinely cool idea: give everyone a basic amount to spend, and let them do what they will with it. They could write poetry, compose sonatas, or study number theory. They could work for more income if they wanted. Or they could relax and do absolutely nothing. UBI is the offspring of a beautiful dream: the liberation of the human being from the drudgery of everyday labor. But it is also the product of a scary thought: the trend of ever-advancing automation, now accelerated many-fold by new deep learning algorithms . You see the connection, of course. If a bunch of creepy robots are going to pass the Turing test at the call center , or drive up shinily when you hail an Über , or stack boxes even as they are energetically prevented from doing so , or even dance while doing
Read more

The Micro and the Macro of Covid-19

-
Or, The Case of the Invisible Denominator I've been chatting with Jay Bhattacharya , Professor at the Stanford School of Medicine, and co-author of a very thought-provoking piece on mortality rates under covid-19 . Briefly, these authors study incidence rates in three cases where either a full census of tests was conducted, as in the Italian town of  Vò in Padua, or where a random sample was drawn, as in Iceland. Using incidence rates for covid from these cases, they suggest that the fatality rate for covid is far lower than we think, or fear.   Going beyond these cases, the problem, of course, is a missing denominator: just how many are infected? Assuming we accurately know the deaths from covid-19 --- possibly not , but setting that aside --- the unknown denominator of actual cases moves us along an "isoquant" of fatality rates and contagion rates, which multiply out to the known deaths. The higher the contagion, the lower must be the fatality rate, for some given
Read more