Showing posts with label brainpower. Show all posts
Showing posts with label brainpower. Show all posts

Thursday, April 04, 2024

Casey Handmer: Terraform Industries and a Carbon-Neutral Future — Manifold #57

 

Casey Handmer (PhD Caltech, general relativity) is the founder of Terraform Industries. He is one of the most capable and ambitious geo-engineers on planet Earth! 

Terraform Industries is scaling technology to produce cheap natural gas with sunlight and air. Using solar energy, they extract carbon from the air and synthesize natural gas, all at the same site. 

March 2024: "Terraform completes the end to end demo, successfully producing fossil carbon free pipeline grade natural gas from sunlight and air. We also achieved green hydrogen at <$2.50/kg-H2 and DAC CO2 at <$250/T-CO2, two incredible milestones." 

Links: 

Casey Handmer’s website: https://www.caseyhandmer.com/ 

Terraform Industries: https://terraformindustries.com/ 

Nerds on Patrol [Episode 3] - Terraform Industries: 

Steve and Casey discuss: 

0:00 Introduction 
00:31 Casey's early life and background, from Australia to Caltech 
07:55 The academic path and transition to tech entrepreneurship 10:40 Terraform Industries 
15:21 Solar costs, efficiency, and global Impact 
24:25 A world powered by Terraform methane 
31:27 The entrepreneurial journey: challenges and insights 
35:01 Investor dynamics and strategic decisions for Terraform 
41:28 The hard Reality of manufacturing and innovation 
44:11 Navigating intellectual property and strategic partnerships 
45:49 The moral and technical challenges of carbon neutrality 
55:48 Looking ahead: Terraform's next milestones and the solar revolution

Transcript and Audio-only version:

Thursday, October 26, 2023

Paradise Lost - Migdal, Polyakov, and Landau

This is a placeholder for a longer post I hope to expand on in the future, based on this essay: 


Migdal and Polyakov were two of the great Soviet physicists of their generation. Polyakov is on the upper left and Migdal the lower right.




Wikipedia: Migdal, Polyakov

The essay describes their education as young physicists. They were examined by Landau himself at age 15, and by age 19 had written a paper anticipating the Higgs Mechanism and the role of spontaneous symmetry breaking in gauge theory.

Migdal: Khalat was a genius of political intrigue. Being married into Inner Circle of the Soviet System (his wife Valya is the daughter of a legendary Revolution hero), he used all his connections and all the means to achieve his secret goal — assemble the best brains and let them Think Freely. 
On the surface, his pitch to the Party went as follows. “The West is attacking us for anti-Semitism. The best way to counter this slander is to create an Institute, where Jews are accepted, allowed to travel abroad and generally look happy. This can be a very small Institute, by standards of Atomic Project, it will have no secret military research, it will cost you very little, but it will help “Rasryadka” (Détente). These Jews will be so happy, they will tell all their Jewish friends in the West how well they live. And if they won’t –it is after all, us who decide which one goes abroad and which one stays home. They are smart kids, they will figure out which side of the toast is buttered.” 
As I put it, Khalat sold half of his soul to Devil and used the money to save another half. I truly respect him for that, now once I learned what it takes to create a startup and try to protect it against hostile world. 
As many crazy plans before it, this plan really worked. Best brains were assembled in Landau Institute, they were given a chance to happily solve problems without being forced to eat political shit like the whole country and – yes, they sometimes traveled abroad and made friends in the West. 
In a way the plan worked too well — we became so worldly and so free that we could no longer be controlled. And, needless to say, our friends in the West became closer to us that our curators in KGB.
I was in the 1990s generation of American physicists who had to contend on the job market with a stream of great theorists from the former Soviet Union. Both Migdal and Polyakov ended up at Princeton, and there were many others in their wake, closer to my age.

Sunday, October 22, 2023

Abdus Salam and the Pakistan Nuclear Weapons Program

After my conversation with Bharat Karnad about the Indian nuclear arsenal I became curious about Pakistan's nuclear program. 


I came across this historical analysis: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.2266.pdf

Abdus Salam: A Reappraisal. Part II Salam's Part in the Pakistani Nuclear Weapon Programme
Salam's biographies claim that he was opposed to Pakistan's nuclear weapon programme. This is somewhat strange given that he was the senior Science Advisor to the Pakistan government for at least some of the period between 1972 when the programme was initiated and 1998 when a successful nuclear weapon test was carried out. I look at the evidence for his participation in the programme.


Salam shared the Nobel Prize with Glashow and Weinberg. He is a leading theoretician, although many have questioned what, exactly, was his contribution to the formulation of the electroweak theory of particle physics that Glashow and Weinberg contributed to.

Currently Pakistan's arsenal is ~200 warheads and similar in size to India's. Their largest warhead is estimated to have a yield of ~40kt, compared to ~20kt for the Indians.

What interested me the most was Salam's role in the early stages of the project.


See the paper for more interesting details. Previously I was only aware of Riazuddin through his academic publications, not his weapons work.

I mentioned to Karnad that I had been surprised that some of the Iranin theoreticians assassinated by Israel over the last 10-15 years had quite abstract research interests. They didn't seem the type to be working on bombs - but I suppose you never know! 

Tuesday, October 10, 2023

SMPY 65: Help support the SMPY Longitudinal Study


The Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) needs your help to support the Age-65 phase of their unique longitudinal study. 


For decades, co-directed by David Lubinski and Camilla P. Benbow, SMPY has been a beacon of enlightenment, tracking five cohorts comprising over 5,000 remarkably gifted individuals. In doing so, we have unraveled the secrets to nurturing brilliance. However, we are confronted with a disconcerting reality: the effective methods to identify and cultivate intellectual talent are under siege, threatened by political ideology. 

Our 14-minute documentary and the 3-page feature in Nature underscore the dire need to provide our most gifted youths with the educational opportunities they deserve. They are the architects of solutions and the architects of the future itself. 

Here are some compelling longitudinal findings from SMPY's extensive research:
• Prodigies destined for eminent careers can be identified as early as age 13. 
• There is no plateau of ability; even within the top 1%, variations in mathematical, spatial, and verbal abilities profoundly impact educational, occupational, and creative outcomes. 
• The blend of specific abilities, such as mathematical, spatial, and verbal aptitudes, shapes the nature of one's accomplishments and career trajectory.



More information:

Long

Short


DONATE HERE

Indicate "Please designate this gift to Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth" in the Special Instructions.


Wednesday, August 30, 2023

The World of Yesterday: Steve Hsu on polygenic scores, gene editing, human flourishing

 

I really enjoyed this long conversation with Dan Schulz, an MSU engineering grad who works in tech. Dan did his homework and we covered a lot of important topics.

Transcript: https://www.danschulz.co/p/3-steve-hsu 
Apple: https://apple.co/44eTSrJ 
Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3P03SzN 

Timestamps
 
(0:00:00) - Intro 
(0:00:33) -  Genomic Prediction 
(0:05:54) - IVF 
(0:12:34) - Phenotypic data 
(0:15:42) - Predicting height 
(0:28:27) - Pleiotropy 
(0:39:14) - Optimism 
(0:45:03) - Gene editing 
(0:48:27) - Super intelligent humans 
(1:01:27) - Regulation 
(1:06:36) - Human values 
(1:17:38) - Should you do IVF? 
(1:26:06) - 23andMe 
(1:29:03) - Jeff Bezos 
(1:34:29) - Richard Feynman 
(1:43:43) - Where are the superstar physicists? 
(1:45:37) - Is physics a good field to get into?

Thursday, August 10, 2023

AI on your phone? Tim Dettmers on quantization of neural networks — Manifold #41

 

Tim Dettmers develops computationally efficient methods for deep learning. He is a leader in quantization: coarse graining of large neural networks to increase speed and reduce hardware requirements. 

Tim developed 4-and 8-bit quantizations enabling training and inference with large language models on affordable GPUs and CPUs - i.e., as commonly found in home gaming rigs. 

Tim and Steve discuss: Tim's background and current research program, large language models, quantization and performance, democratization of AI technology, the open source Cambrian explosion in AI, and the future of AI. 





0:00 Introduction and Tim’s background 
18:02 Tim's interest in the efficiency and accessibility of large language models 
38:05 Inference, speed, and the potential for using consumer GPUs for running large language models 
45:55 Model training and the benefits of quantization with QLoRA 
57:14 The future of AI and large language models in the next 3-5 years and beyond

Tuesday, September 20, 2022

Sibling Variation in Phenotype and Genotype: Polygenic Trait Distributions and DNA Recombination Mapping with UK Biobank and IVF Family Data (medRxiv)

This is a new paper which uses Genomic Prediction IVF family data, including genotyped embryo samples.
Sibling Variation in Phenotype and Genotype: Polygenic Trait Distributions and DNA Recombination Mapping with UK Biobank and IVF Family Data
L. Lello, M. Hsu, E. Widen, and T. Raben  
We use UK Biobank and a unique IVF family dataset (including genotyped embryos) to investigate sibling variation in both phenotype and genotype. We compare phenotype (disease status, height, blood biomarkers) and genotype (polygenic scores, polygenic health index) distributions among siblings to those in the general population. As expected, the between-siblings standard deviation in polygenic scores is \sqrt{2} times smaller than in the general population, but variation is still significant. As previously demonstrated, this allows for substantial benefit from polygenic screening in IVF. Differences in sibling genotypes result from distinct recombination patterns in sexual reproduction. We develop a novel sibling-pair method for detection of recombination breaks via statistical discontinuities. The new method is used to construct a dataset of 1.44 million recombination events which may be useful in further study of meiosis.

Here are some figures illustrating the variation of polygenic scores among siblings from the same family.



The excerpt below describes the IVF family highlighted in blue above:

Among the families displayed in these figures, at position number 15 from the left, we encounter an interesting case of sibling polygenic distribution relative to the parents. In the family all siblings have significantly higher Health Index score than the parents. This arises in an interesting manner: the mother is a high-risk outlier for condition X and the father is a high-risk outlier for condition Y. (We do not specify X and Y, out of an abundance of caution for privacy, although the patients have consented that such information could be shared.) Their lower overall Health Index scores result from high risk of conditions X (mother) and Y (father). However, the embryos, each resulting from unique recombination of parental genotypes, are normal risk for both X and Y and each embryo has much higher Health Index score than the parents.
This case illustrates well the potential benefits from PGS embryo screening.

 
The second part of the paper introduces a new technique that directly probes DNA recombination -- the molecular mechanism responsible for sibling genetic differences. See figure above for some results. The new method detects recombination breaks via statistical discontinuities in pairwise comparisons of DNA regions.

From the discussion:
...This new sibling-pair method can be applied to large datasets with many thousands of sibling pairs. In this project we created a map of roughly 1.44 million recombination events using UKB genomes. Similar maps can now be created using other biobank data, including in non-European ancestry groups that have not yet received sufficient attention. The landmark deCODE results were obtained under special circumstances: the researchers had access to data resulting from a nationwide project utilizing genealogical records (unusually prevalent in Iceland) and widespread sequencing. Using the sibling-pair method results of comparable accuracy can be obtained from existing datasets around the world -- e.g., national biobanks in countries such as the USA, Estonia, China, Taiwan, Japan, etc.
The creator of this new sibling-pair method for recombination mapping is my son. He developed and tested the algorithm, and wrote all the code in Python. It's his high school science project :-)

Sunday, August 14, 2022

Tweet Treats: AI in PRC, Semiconductors and the Russian War Machine, Wordcels are Midwits

Some recent tweets which might be of interest :-)

Tuesday, May 03, 2022

How We Learned, Then Forgot, About Human Intelligence... And Witnessing the Live Breakdown of Academia (podcast interview with Cactus Chu)

This is a long interview I did recently with Cactus Chu, a math prodigy turned political theorist and podcaster. (Unfortunately I can't embed the podcast here.)


Timestamps: 
3:24 Interview Starts  
15:49 Cactus' Experience with High Math People 
19:49 High School Sports 
21:26 Comparison to Intelligence 
26:29 Is Lack of Understanding due to Denial or Ignorance? 
29:29 The Past and Present of Selection in Academia 
37:02 How Universities Look from the Inside 
44:19 Informal Networks Replacing Credentials 
48:37 Capture of Research Positions 
50:24 Progressivism as Demagoguery Against the Self-Made 
55:31 Innumeracy is Common 
1:06:53 Understanding Innumerate People 
1:13:53 Skill Alignment at Cactus' High School 
1:18:12 Free Speech in Academia 
1:21:00 You Shouldn't Fire Exceptional People 
1:23:03 The Anti-Excellence Progressives 
1:28:42 Rawls, Nozick, and Technology 
1:34:00 Freedom = Variance = Inequality 
1:37:58 Dating Apps 
1:41:27 Jumping Into Social Problems From a Technical Background 
1:41:50 Steve's High School Pranks 
1:46:43 996 and Cactus' High School 
1:50:26 The Vietnam War and Social Change 
1:53:07 Are Podcasts the Future? 
1:59:37 The Power of New Things 
2:02:56 The Birth of Twitter 
2:07:27 Selection Creates Quality 
2:10:21 Incentives of University Departments 
2:16:29 Woke Bureaucrats 
2:27:59 Building a New University 
2:30:42 What needs more order? 
2:31:56 What needs more chaos?

An automated (i.e., imperfect) transcript of our discussion.

Here's an excerpt from the podcast:

Monday, March 14, 2022

"The Pressure to Conform is Enormous": Steve Hsu on Affirmative Action, Assimilation and IQ Outliers (CSPI Podcast with Richard Hanania)

 

Another great conversation with Richard Hanania. 

Some rough timestamps: 
Begin: American society, growing up as child of immigrants 

18m: Russia-Ukraine conflict (eve of invasion), geopolitical implications (China, India, Germany, EU) 

38m: Affirmative Action, Harvard case at SCOTUS 

54m: Woke leftists at the university, destruction of meritocracy, STEM vs Social Justice advocacy, Sokal Hoax 

1h25m: Academic economics, 2008 credit crisis, Do economists test theories? 

1h33m: Maverick thinking, Agreeableness, Aspergers, Pressure to conform 

1h39m: Far-tail intelligence, Jeff Bezos and physics, progress in science and technology
Full transcript at Richard's substack.

Friday, December 03, 2021

Adventures of a Mathematician: Ulam, von Karman, Wiener, and the Golem

 

Ulam's Adventures of a Mathematician was recently made into a motion picture -- see trailer above. 

I have an old copy purchased from the Caltech bookstore. When I flip through the book it never fails to reward with a wonderful anecdote from an era of giants.
[Ulam] ... In Israel many years later, while I was visiting the town of Safed with von Kárman, an old Orthodox Jewish guide with earlocks showed me the tomb of Caro in an old graveyard. When I told him that I was related to a Caro, he fell on his knees... Aunt Caro was directly related to the famous Rabbi Loew of sixteenth-century Prague, who, the legend says, made the Golem — the earthen giant who was protector of the Jews. (Once, when I mentioned this connection with the Golem to Norbert Wiener, he said, alluding to my involvement with Los Alamos and with the H-bomb, "It is still in the family!")



See also von Neumann: "If only people could keep pace with what they create"
One night in early 1945, just back from Los Alamos, vN woke in a state of alarm in the middle of the night and told his wife Klari: 
"... we are creating ... a monster whose influence is going to change history ... this is only the beginning! The energy source which is now being made available will make scientists the most hated and most wanted citizens in any country. The world could be conquered, but this nation of puritans will not grab its chance; we will be able to go into space way beyond the moon if only people could keep pace with what they create ..." 
He then predicted the future indispensable role of automation, becoming so agitated that he had to be put to sleep by a strong drink and sleeping pills. 
In his obituary for John von Neumann, Ulam recalled a conversation with vN about the 
"... ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue." 
This is the origin of the concept of technological singularity. Perhaps we can even trace it to that night in 1945 :-)
More Ulam from this blog, including:
[p.107] I told Banach about an expression Johnny had used with me in Princeton before stating some non-Jewish mathematician's result, "Die Goim haben den folgenden satz beweisen" (The goys have proved the following theorem). Banach, who was pure goy, thought it was one of the funniest sayings he had ever heard. He was enchanted by its implication that if the goys could do it, then Johnny and I ought to be able to do it better. Johnny did not invent this joke, but he liked it and we started using it.

Thursday, October 21, 2021

PRC Hypersonic Missiles, FOBS, and Qian Xuesen




There are deep connections between the images above and below. Qian Xuesen proposed the boost glide trajectory while still at Caltech.








Background on recent PRC test of FOBS/glider hypersonic missile/vehicle. More from Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall. Detailed report on PRC hypersonic systems development. Reuters: Rocket failure mars U.S. hypersonic weapon test (10/21/21)

The situation today is radically different from when Qian first returned to China. In a decade or two China may have ~10x as many highly able scientists and engineers as the US, comparable to the entire world (ex-China) combined [1]. Already the depth of human capital in PRC is apparent to anyone closely watching their rate of progress (first derivative) in space (Mars/lunar lander, space station, LEO), advanced weapons systems (stealth jets, radar, missiles, jet engines), AI/ML, alternative energy, materials science, nuclear energy, fundamental and applied physics, consumer electronics, drones, advanced manufacturing, robotics, etc. etc. The development of a broad infrastructure base for advanced manufacturing and R&D also contributes to this progress, of course.

[1] It is trivial to obtain this ~10x estimate: PRC population is ~4x US population, a larger fraction of PRC students pursue STEM degrees, and a larger proportion of PRC students reach elite levels of math proficiency, e.g., PISA Level 6.



"It was the stupidest thing this country ever did," former Navy Secretary Dan Kimball later said, according to Aviation Week. "He was no more a Communist than I was, and we forced him to go." ... 
Qian Xuesen, a former Caltech rocket scientist who helped establish the Jet Propulsion Laboratory before being deported in 1955 on suspicion of being a Communist and who became known as the father of China's space and missile programs, has died. He was 98. ... 
Qian, a Chinese-born aeronautical engineer educated at Caltech and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was a protege of Caltech's eminent professor Theodore von Karman, who recognized him as an outstanding mathematician and "undisputed genius."

Below, a documentary on Qian and a movie-length biopic (English subtitles).





Tuesday, August 17, 2021

John Preskill interview by Sean Carroll

 

This is a great interview of John Preskill by Sean Carroll. 

Both are many worlders. At about 20 minutes John says:
I'm an Everettian... 
I'm comfortable with nothing happening in the world besides unitary evolution ... 
Measurement isn't something fundamentally different. ... 
It seems minimal: you know there's nothing happening but the Schrodinger equation and things are evolving, and if we can reconcile that with what we observe about physics ...

In Ten Years of Quantum Coherence and Decoherence I listed a number of prominent theorists who have expressed some degree of belief in many worlds.

Q1. (largely mathematical): Does the phenomenology of pure state evolution in a closed system (e.g., the universe) reproduce Copenhagen for observers in the system? 
This is a question about dynamical evolution: of the system as a whole, and of various interacting subsystems. It's not a philosophical question and, in my opinion, it is what theorists should focus on first. Although complicated, it is still reasonably well-posed from a mathematical perspective, at least as far as foundational physics questions go. 
I believe the evidence is strong that the answer to #1 is Yes, although the issue of the Born rule lingers (too complicated to discuss here, but see various papers I have written on the topic, along with other people like Deutsch, Zurek, etc.). It is clear from Weinberg's writing that he and I agree that the answer is Yes, modulo the Born rule. 
Define this position to be 
Y* := "Yes, possibly modulo Born" 
There are some theorists who do not agree with Y* (see the survey results above), but they are mostly people who have not thought it through carefully, in my opinion. 
I don't know of any explicit arguments for how Y* fails, and our recent results applying the vN QET strengthen my confidence in Y*. 
I believe (based on published remarks or from my personal interactions) that the following theorists have opinions that are Y* or stronger: Schwinger, DeWitt, Wheeler, Deutsch, Hawking, Feynman, Gell-Mann, Zeh, Hartle, Weinberg, Zurek, Guth, Preskill, Page, Cooper (BCS), Coleman, Misner, Arkani-Hamed, etc. 
But there is a generational issue, with many older (some now deceased!) theorists being reticent about expressing Y* even if they believe it. This is shifting over time and, for example, a poll of younger string theorists or quantum cosmologists would likely find a strong majority expressing Y*. 
[ Social conformity and groupthink are among the obstacles preventing broader understanding of Q1. That is, in part, why I have listed specific high profile individuals as having reached the unconventional but correct view! ]

Monday, July 26, 2021

Farewell, Big Steve

Steven Weinberg, a giant of theoretical physics, passed on July 23, 2021 -- he was 88 years old. His best known work, for which he received the Nobel prize, proposed the unification of electromagnetic and weak forces, and formed a key component of the Standard Model of particle physics. But his lifetime of work ranged from cosmology to gravitation to quantum field theory to foundations of quantum mechanics. A brief autobiography.
Wikipedia: It is a story widely told that Steven Weinberg, who inherited Schwinger's paneled office in Lyman Laboratory (Harvard Physics department), there found a pair of old shoes, with the implied message, "think you can fill these?"
Indeed, it is true that almost no one on the planet could have filled Schwinger's shoes. But Big Steve did, and more.

 
Below I've reproduced a post from 2017, Steven Weinberg: What's the matter with quantum mechanics? 

The video of Weinberg's talk is from 2016, when he would have been 83 or so.



In this public lecture Weinberg explains the problems with the two predominant interpretations of quantum mechanics, which he refers to as Instrumentalist (e.g., Copenhagen) and Realist (e.g., Many Worlds). The term "interpretation" may be misleading because what is ultimately at stake is the nature of physical reality. Both interpretations have serious problems, but the problem with Realism (in Weinberg's view, and my own) is not the quantum multiverse, but rather the origin of probability within deterministic Schrodinger evolution. Instrumentalism is, of course, ill-defined nutty mysticism 8-)

Physicists will probably want to watch this at 1.5x or 2x speed. The essential discussion is at roughly 22-40min, so it's only a 10 minute investment of your time. These slides explain in pictures.

See also Weinberg on Quantum Foundations, where I wrote:
It is a shame that very few working physicists, even theoreticians, have thought carefully and deeply about quantum foundations. Perhaps Weinberg's fine summary will stimulate greater awareness of this greatest of all unresolved problems in science.
and quoted Weinberg:
... today there is no interpretation of quantum mechanics that does not have serious flaws. 
Posts on this blog related to the Born Rule, etc., and two of my papers:
The measure problem in many worlds quantum mechanics

On the origin of probability in quantum mechanics

Dynamical theories of wavefunction collapse are necessarily non-linear generalizations of Schrodinger evolution, which lead to problems with locality.

Among those who take the Realist position seriously: Feynman and Gell-Mann, Schwinger, Hawking, and many more.

Wednesday, May 26, 2021

How Dominic Cummings And The Warner Brothers Saved The UK




Photo above shows the white board in the Prime Minister's office which Dominic Cummings and team (including the brothers Marc and Ben Warner) used to convince Boris Johnson to abandon the UK government COVID herd immunity plan and enter lockdown. Date: March 13 2020. 

Only now can the full story be told. In early 2020 the UK government had a COVID herd immunity plan in place that would have resulted in disaster. The scientific experts (SAGE) advising the government strongly supported this plan -- there are public, on the record briefings to this effect. These are people who are not particularly good at order of magnitude estimates and first-principles reasoning. 

Fortunately Dom was advised by the brothers Marc and Ben Warner (both physics PhDs, now working in AI and data science), DeepMind founder Demis Hassabis, Fields Medalist Tim Gowers, and others. In the testimony (see ~23m, ~35m, ~1h02m, ~1h06m in the video below) he describes the rather dramatic events that led to a switch from the original herd immunity plan to a lockdown Plan B. More details in this tweet thread.


I checked my emails with Dom during February and March, and they confirm his narrative. I wrote the March 9 blog post Covid-19 Notes in part for Dom and his team, and I think it holds up over time. Tim Gowers' document reaches similar conclusions.


 

Seven hours of riveting Dominic Cummings testimony from earlier today. 


Shorter summary video (Channel 4). Summary live-blog from the Guardian.



This is a second white board used in the March 14 meeting with Boris Johnson:



Wednesday, February 03, 2021

Gerald Feinberg and The Prometheus Project


Gerald Feinberg (1933-1992) was a theoretical physicist at Columbia, perhaps best known for positing the tachyon -- a particle that travels faster than light. He also predicted the existence of the mu neutrino. 

Feinberg attended Bronx Science with Glashow and Weinberg. Interesting stories abound concerning how the three young theorists were regarded by their seniors at the start of their careers. 

I became aware of Feinberg when Pierre Sikivie and I worked out the long range force resulting from two neutrino exchange. Although we came to the idea independently and derived, for the first time, the correct result, we learned later that it had been studied before by Feinberg and Sucher. Sadly, Feinberg died of cancer shortly before Pierre and I wrote our paper. 

Recently I came across Feinberg's 1969 book The Prometheus Project, which is one of the first serious examinations (outside of science fiction) of world-changing technologies such as genetic engineering and AI. See reviews in SciencePhysics Today, and H+ Magazine. A scanned copy of the book can be found at Libgen.

Feinberg had the courage to engage with ideas that were much more speculative in the late 60s than they are today. He foresaw correctly, I believe, that technologies like AI and genetic engineering will alter not just human society but the nature of the human species itself. In the final chapter, he outlines a proposal for the eponymous Prometheus Project -- a global democratic process by which the human species can set long term goals in order to guide our approach to what today would be called the Singularity.

   









Monday, January 11, 2021

Global AI Talent Flows


The illustration above describes a global population of ~5k researchers whose papers were accepted to the leading 2019 conference in deep neural nets. To be precise they looked at ~700 authors of a randomly chosen subset of papers. There is also a more select population of individuals who gave presentations at the meeting. This is certainly not the entire field of AI, but a reasonable proxy for it.

Global AI talent tracker:
For its December 2019 conference, NeurIPS saw a record-breaking 15,920 researchers submit 6,614 papers, with a paper acceptance rate of 21.6%, making it one of the largest, most popular, and most selective AI conferences on record. 
Key Takeaways 
1. The United States has a large lead over all other countries in top-tier AI research, with nearly 60% of top-tier researchers working for American universities and companies. The US lead is built on attracting international talent, with more than two-thirds of the top-tier AI researchers working in the United States having received undergraduate degrees in other countries.   
2. China is the largest source of top-tier researchers, with 29% of these researchers having received undergraduate degrees in China. But the majority of those Chinese researchers (56%) go on to study, work, and live in the United States. 
3. Over half (53%) of all the top-tier AI researchers are immigrants or foreign nationals currently working in a different country from where they received their undergraduate degrees.
Prediction: PRC share in all 3 categories will increase in coming decades as their K12, undergraduate, and graduate schools continue to improve, and their high-tech economy grows much larger. See Ditchley Foundation meeting: World Order today

Using conference papers as the filter probably misses a lot of world class work (especially implementation at scale) that is going on in PRC at tech companies. Note in the list below the only Chinese institutions are Tsinghua and Beijing universities. But I would be surprised if those were the main accumulation of top AI talent in China, compared to large tech companies.

 

Wednesday, December 02, 2020

Ditchley Foundation meeting: World Order Today


Thursday and Friday (Dec 3 and 4) I will participate in this Ditchley Foundation event, in honor of Henry Kissinger. I'm unsure whether I'm allowed to say who the other participants are.

Unfortunately the event is entirely virtual, unlike the meeting on genetic engineering I attended there in 2019. (Slides

A big focus of this meeting will be the role of China in the World Order (their terminology). Apropos of that, see this analysis by German academic Gunnar Heinsohn. Two of his slides appear below.

1. It is possible that by 2050 the highly able STEM workforce in PRC will be ~10x larger than in the US and comparable to or larger than the rest of the world combined. Here "highly able" means roughly top few percentile math ability in developed countries (e.g., EU), as measured by PISA at age 15.

2. The trajectory of international patent filings shown below is likely to continue. Note the catch-up pattern of S. Korea vs Germany over 25 years.

See earlier post The East is Red, the Giant Rises.

Tuesday, September 15, 2020

Schrodinger's Cat and the Normaliens


Yesterday I had cause to look something up related to macroscopic superposition states ("Schrodinger cat states") in Serge Haroche's book Exploring the Quantum. Curiosity led me to Haroche's 2012 Nobel Lecture and autobiography, which I found fascinating. 

One wonders how long an elitist, highly meritocratic and undeniably productive system like the French Grandes Ecoles can continue to function in the current political climate. Quel dommage.
... I was fascinated by astronomy and by calculus, the notion of derivatives and simple differential equations which describe so directly and so well the laws of dynamics obeyed by moving bodies. This was the time of the first artificial satellites, the sputniks which orbited the earth and launched the American-Soviet race to the moon. 
I marveled at the fact that I was able, with the elementary calculus I knew, to compute the escape velocity of rockets, the periods of satellites on their orbits and the gravitational field at the surface of all the planets … I understood then that nature obeys mathematical laws, a fact that did not cease to astonish me. I knew, from that time on, that I wanted to be a scientist. For that, I embarked in the strenuous and demanding “classes préparatoires” of the famed Lycée Louis-Le-Grand, one of the preparatory schools which train the best French students for the contest examinations leading to the “Grandes Ecoles.” They are the engineering and academic schools, which since the French Revolution, have formed the scientific elite of France. These were two years of intensive study where I learned a lot of math and of classical physics. I eventually was admitted in 1963 to the Ecole Polytechnique (ranking first in the national examination, to the great pride of my parents) and at the Ecole Normale Supérieure (ENS). I chose to enter the latter because, at that time, it offered a much better opportunity to embark in a scientist career. 
The years as a student at ENS (1963–1967) have left me wonderful memories, contrasting sharply with the strenuous training of the preparatory school. Here, in the middle of the Latin Quarter, I was free to organize my time as I wished, to meet and discuss with students working in all kinds of fields in science or humanities and to enjoy all the distractions and cultural activities Paris has to offer. And I was paid for that, since the “Normaliens” as the ENS students are called, are considered civil servants and receive a generous stipend! These were my formative years as a scientist. Coming so to speak from the physics of the 19th century which was taught in the classes préparatoires, I was immediately thrown into modern physics and the quantum world by the classes of exceptional teachers. Alfred Kastler gave us a lyrical description of the dance of atomic kinetic moments, and gave atoms and photons a near poetic existence. Jean Brossel brought us back to Earth by describing the great experiments thanks to which quantum concepts were established, instilling in us the austere passion for precision. And Claude Cohen-Tannoudji revealed the theory’s formalism to us with extraordinary depth and clarity. I still remember three books I read avidly at the time: Quantum Mechanics by Albert Messiah, where I truly understood the depth and beauty of the quantum theory; Principlesof Nuclear Magnetism by Anatole Abragam, who introduced me to the subtle world of atomic magnetic moments; and Feynman’s Lectures on Physics, which was a revelation.
See also 

Friday, April 17, 2020

The von Neumann-Fuchs bomb, and the radiation compression mechanism of Ulam-Teller-Sakharov


Some useful references below on the Ulam-Teller mechanism, Sakharov's Third Idea, and the von Neumann-Fuchs thermonuclear design of 1946. They resolve a mystery discussed previously on this blog:
Sakharov's Third Idea: ... If Zeldovich was already familiar with radiation pressure as the tool for compression, via the Fuchs report of 1948, then perhaps one cannot really credit Teller so much for adding this ingredient to Ulam's idea of a staged device using a fission bomb to compress the thermonuclear fuel. Fuchs and von Neumann had already proposed (and patented!) radiation implosion years before. More here.
It turns out that the compression mechanism used in the von Neumann-Fuchs design (vN is the first author on the patent application; the design was realized in the Operation Greenhouse George nuclear test of 1951) is not that of Ulam-Teller or Sakharov. In vN-F the D-T mixture reaches thermal equilibrium with ionized BeO gas, leading to a pressure increase of ~10x. This is not the "cold compression" via focused radiation pressure used in the U-T / Sakharov designs. That was, apparently,  conceived independently by Ulam-Teller and Sakharov.

It is only recently that the vN-F design has become public -- first obtained by the Soviets via espionage (Fuchs), and finally declassified and published by the Russians! It seems that Zeldovich had access to this information, but not Sakharov.

American and Soviet H-bomb development programmes: historical background by G. Goncharov.

John von Neumann and Klaus Fuchs: an Unlikely Collaboration by Jeremy Bernstein. See also here for some clarifying commentary.


A great anecdote:
Jeremy Bernstein: When I was an undergraduate at Harvard he [vN] came to the university to give lectures on the computer and the brain. They were the best lectures I have ever heard on anything — like mental champagne. After one of them I found myself walking in Harvard Square and looked up to see von Neumann. Thinking, correctly as it happened, that it would be the only chance I would have to ask him a question, I asked, ‘‘Professor von Neumann, will the computer ever replace the human mathematician?’’ He studied me and then responded, ‘‘Sonny, don’t worry about it.’’


Note added from comments: I hope this clarifies things a bit.
The question of how the Soviets got to the U-T mechanism is especially mysterious. Sakharov himself (ostensibly the Soviet inventor) was puzzled until the end about what had really happened! He did not have access to the vN-F design that has been made public from the Russian side (~2000, after Sakharov's death in 1989; still classified in US). Zeldovich and only a few others had seen the Fuchs information, at a time when the main focus of the Russian program was not the H bomb. Sakharov could never be sure whether his suggestion for cold radiation compression sparked Zeldovich's interest because the latter *had seen the idea before* without fully comprehending it. Sakharov wondered about this until the end of his life (see below), but I think his surmise was not correct: we know now that vN-F did *not* come up with that idea in their 1946 design. I've been puzzled about this question myself for some time. IF the vN-F design had used radiation pressure for cold compression, why did Teller get so much credit for replacing neutrons with radiation pressure in Ulam's staged design (1951)? I stumbled across the (now public) vN-F design by accident just recently -- I was reading some biographical stuff about Zeldovich which touched upon these issues.

https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2012/10/sakharovs-third-idea.html

Consider the following words in Sakharov’s memoirs, with a note he added toward the end of life:

Now I think that the main idea of the H-bomb design developed by the Zeldovich group was based on intelligence information. However, I can’t prove this conjecture. It occurred to me quite recently, but at the time I just gave it no thought. (Note added July 1987. David Holloway writes in “Soviet Thermonuclear Development,” International Security 4:3 (1979/80), p. 193: “The Soviet Union had been informed by Klaus Fuchs of the studies of thermonuclear weapons at Los Alamos up to 1946. … His information would have been misleading rather than helpful, because the early ideas were later shown not to work.” Therefore my conjecture is confirmed!)
Another useful resource: Gennady Gorelik (BU science historian): The Paternity of the H-Bombs: Soviet-American Perspectives
Teller, 1952, August (re Bethe’s Memorandum): The main principle of radiation implosion was developed in connection with the thermonuclear program and was stated at a con­ference on the thermonuclear bomb, in the spring of 1946. Dr. Bethe did not attend this conference, but Dr. Fuchs did. [ Original development by vN? ]

It is difficult to argue to what extent an invention is accidental: most difficult for someone who did not make the invention himself. It appears to me that the idea was a relatively slight modification of ideas generally known in 1946. Essentially only two elements had to be added: to implode a bigger volume, and, to achieve greater compression by keeping the imploded material cool as long as possible.
The last part ("cool as long as possible") refers to the fundamental difference between the vN-Fuchs design and the U-T mechanism of cold radiation compression. The former assumes thermal equilibrium between ionized gas and radiation, while latter deliberately avoids it as long as possible.

Official Soviet History: On the making of the Soviet hydrogen (thermonuclear) bomb, Yu B Khariton et al 1996 Phys.-Usp. 39 185. Some details on the origin of the compression idea, followed by the use of radiation pressure (Zeldovich and Sakharov).

Blog Archive

Labels