Wednesday, July 09, 2014 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Poroshenko: we will move money from "useless" science to weapons

Two days ago, the de facto president of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko offered us another explanation why I classify the current leaders of the country as an inhumane and counterproductive fascist junta that is making things worse.

This July 7th press release on Poroshenko's website (EN) says:

"There will be no more spending of billions of people's money, taxpayers' money on research programs that nobody needs and that have only served to the elements of theft. Today, the Ukrainian production will be occupied with precision weapons systems, Ukrainian drones, and everything that the Ukrainian army needs - from bullet-proof vests to thermal cameras," Poroshenko said.
Translation by LM. Poroshenko – who was assuring his military of his support in their terror against the ethnic Russians in the East – doesn't even try to pretend a civilized face.

Just to be sure, the Ukrainian research doesn't boast a spectacular quality and efficiency. But to focus on the production of tools to kill the people isn't the right path towards progress, especially because we are talking about the murder of Ukraine's own people and yes, people who are more productive, wealthier, and more civilized in average than the typical supporters of the current fascist junta.

In Czechia, like in many European and other countries, numerous research programs are either useless or at least yielding results that are inadequate. But a better future is connected with improving these systems and curing their diseases. Their scrapping isn't any good. Ukraine isn't at the technological level of the Western world, a world it clearly doesn't belong to, and it isn't even at the characteristic level of Russia where it pretty much does.

But sophisticated enough weapon systems is something that even the most screwed up regimes in the in the most screwed up regions of the world – e.g. the Arab World – are doing as their priority. Are these regimes and leaders really Poroshenko's role models? Why doesn't he try to work on the harder but ultimately more promising route? To negotiate with the Russians – both those in his own country and those in the Russian Federation? To ask some people – Yaroslav Tserkovnyak, to mention an example – to advise him how to make the Ukrainian research and indeed, the Ukrainian industry, work better? It may a difficult way to progress but there is no easy way.

Not to mention the fact that Ukraine's spending on the weapons is much more clearly a waste of money. Like a retarded naughty boy from the kindergarten, Poroshenko may be thinking that he is fighting a war. But he isn't fighting any real war yet; it's just terror against mostly defenseless civilian population. If a real war erupted, Russia would prove that these investments to weapons were useless and it would retake Ukraine, anyway.

And I am sad that the European Union and even the United States, with all of their would-be civilized image and human face, are sometimes openly supporting these harmful and often criminal developments and the people who are behind them instead of working hard to bring the likes of Poroshenko to the electric chair.

Via RT, Voice of Russia

BTW this story is clearly legit because the quote may be found on Poroshenko's website. But for certain reasons, you won't learn about it from the Western "mainstream" media.

Meanwhile, Crimea is opening a new scientific center.

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (28) :

reader Jake Summit said...

Hey Putin asshole licker, looks like those animals you support in SE Ukraine are getting their Slavo-Nazi asses kicked. Lulz

reader seoatico said...

we manufacture physics lab equipment such as, Electrical Instruments, Heat Laboratory Equipment, Mechanics Laboratory Equipment, Measurement Instruments, Meteorology Earth Science Apparatus, Modern Physics Instruments, Optical Instruments read more

reader Luboš Motl said...

I appreciate that you are ignorant and menrtally defective but it's still too much, isn't it? If there have ever been any Slavo-Nazis, then it was the Bandera folks who were in many respects more cruel than their German counterparts. These are the role models for the current Ukraine junta.

I have some broader sympathies for other Slavs because of our shared cultural roots but don't exaggerate it. My sentiments boil down to general moral and ethical values, something you don't have the slightest ideas about.

Your celebration of the suffering of the innocent people shows that you are a disgusting animal and when someone will be asking for my permission to deal with you appropriately, it will be a formality.

reader Rene Henc said...

I guess that's nothing new and that "inter arma silent musae" is true for science too.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear William, have you ever seen the models of the aether of FitzGerald, partly designed by Maxwell himself? Gears and wheels needed to emulate curls and so on. I don't quite see why they were doing such things. At any rate, the aether was put to rest definitively by Einstein a few decades later, in 1905.

Those wheels and gears actually worked in the limit of no friction. Classical fields are equivalent to a limit of some classical mechanical elements and wheels converting their motion to each other, and so on. But one can't get QM out of classical pieces in this way, so this game is worse than the aether-from-wheels 120+ years ago, and the latter was already bad enough.

Even as a visualization, one should ask what one wants to achieve. I think that visualizations should teach some things that are actually correct. I think that aside from the visual similarities that may be replaced by a picture of the real QM probability distributions etc., this stuff only teaches things that are wrong.

reader Luboš Motl said...

The word is "conservative".

I have never believed for a minute that a government should use the money of anyone to violently suppress its own population. At most, it should spend on defense - protection against foreign powers that may harm the given country and that the given country has the chance to defend against.

Ukraine doesn't have any enemies of that sort which is why it is ludicrous to spend a lot on the military. I don't care a tiny bit about your ideological slogans. This is about basic human values as well as the economic sanity of the investments, and the Kiev junta is displaying none.

reader W.A. Zajc said...

Dear Lubos: I think we are complete agreement - with our current perspective it's hard to understand the motivation to model Maxwell's equations with a mechanical model, but at least it was a classical model for a classical system that presumably had a "dictionary" for translating a given rotation of a gear into a curl of a field. (Presumably the model works in only one frame of reference?) But replacing Feynman's clear and intellectually rigorous description of the two-slit experiment with a "visualization" based on pilot waves is wrong, wrong, wrong.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Right, Bill. ;-)

Concerning your "one frame of reference" semi-question. Well, if you make sure that Maxwell's equations work (or are properly emulated) in one inertial system, they will be emulated in all inertial systems because the equations are Lorentz-invariant so their Lorentz-transformed versions hold automatically.

Of course that one couldn't really construct a mechanical model that would be "exactly" Lorentz-invariant. First, their mechanical model had to have a lower "speed of light" which was probably even much lower than the speed of sound. And to guarantee the symmetry under the Lorentz invariance with its lower speed of "light", one would need to fine-tune absolutely every property of absolutely every component added to the system - the symmetry can't "naturally" emerge out of the physics of metals that clearly breaks the Lorentz symmetry of any kind.

But this Lorentz symmetry of aether models is something with a similar answer even outside the realm of wheels and gears. Lorentz would work on his non-relativistic theory explaining the negative results of the Morley-Michelson experiments and other things. He introduced the contraction and so on. At the end, his model was equivalent to special relativity in one frame - while he, ironically enough, failed to notice that the Lorentz coordinate redefinitions formed a group and were dictating the right way to change the inertial system.

But despite this failure of Lorentz to complete special relativity, there's some sense in which he knew the right physics including all the corrections - in one frame. From this viewpoint, Einstein's "really new" contribution was just one realizing the symmetry, its importance, and its implications.

reader farhad said...

Lubos , what do you think about this ?

reader Luboš Motl said...

Wow, it has to be some mistake, or not? But maybe it's real, I've never done any of these calculations. It's surely cool if the comparison is done correctly and the disagreement is real.

reader svr4385683 said...

People I've linked to are likeable? I've always thought that reds are likable only when they lay six feet under the ground (I'm not including any children here, because they are being exploited and they are not fully aware of all the atrocities of this criminal political system that they're promoting) .
You almost openly admit that you are a hardcore communist and that the word "conservative" in the description of your blog shouldn't be interpreted as a manifestation of your commitment to the old european values, but rather as a yearning for the Soviet Union and a lack of acceptance of it's fall.
Your sovietism is so immense that you won't hesitate to use any of the worst propaganda tools taken directly from the sad times of the red terror. Words like "Russia has been a friendly country for decades and had no intent to take over Ukraine" could be either a symptom of malignant mental illness, or a manifestation of insolent ignoring basic historical facts for propaganda purposes.
No country did kill as many Ukrainians in 20th century as Russia did. No country did take as many land from Ukraine as Russia did. No country did break as many agreements with Ukraine as Russia did. Russia is as hostile for Ukraine as one can get. Only commies see the world upside-down, and that's why they prefer central planning over free market, that's why they describe voluntary transactions as a form of exploitation, that's why they call bullying a friendship.

The only justification of your disingenuous words I can think of is that you hope to become a member of Russian politburo in the future, or at least to receive a job in the to-be-created Academy of Sciences of to-be-formed CSSS (Czech Soviet Socialist Republic). Otherwise, you should be institutionalized ASAP.

reader TA Speaker said...

Lubos -
Can't say that I follow your writings on string theory and related, BUT do follow / agree with your opinions on Russia / Ukraine. Ubiquity / depth of Russophobia here in the US deeply disturbing - no doubt reflective of Cold War residua and an educational system that endorses "life long learning" - a necessity because the students learn much pre-graduation. As you have written, a strong current of fascism / neo-Nazism DOES run through Western Ukraine politics. These folks are the ideological descendants of Bandera and the Ukrainians who welcomed Hitler's Wehrmacht in 1941, served as guards in the death camps, und so weiter. So keep telling it like it is - TA

reader Josef said...

Dear Kiev fascists: Just keep on killing civilians, матерей, бабушек, дедушек и детское. This I am sure will make someone like Jake Summit and other Kiev supporters in these comments very happy. Just remember, nothing last for ever and in time there will be reciprocity (взаимность) for their evildoing !

reader Luboš Motl said...

Thanks! And this anti-Russian sentiment is sort of puzzling, too. At least for me. Obviously, you wouldn't see anti-Americanism among regular "majority" Czechoslovaks although we would be the best friends of the USSR, mostly but not entirely forcedly so. Even the leaders who were OK with Brezhnev etc. would have some respect for America and surely no knee-jerk hateful reactions - at most calm ways to do anti-American things to help themselves.

And the general anti-Americanism is very limited in today's Russia, too. When one follows the Russian media, there's lots of excitement for various technological advances in the U.S., and lots of things like that. America is treated as a part of "pretty much the same world" that is ahead in many things. Why is there this universal "all Russian things are bad" atmosphere in the U.S.?

When the situation is presented as a proxy repetition of the Second World War, how can someone even doubt that I would pick the side of the USSR? It was the side of the allies. Roosevelt didn't have to "doubt" whether he would join Hitler or Stalin in the war. ;-) It was at times when Stalin was really bad. Today, Putin, while no angel, has surely incomparably lower evil in his character than Stalin, so it should be far clearer whose side should be picked.

There would be aspects in which I could consider the views prevalent in fascist regimes to be the "lesser evil" or "more productive things" but their attitude to ethnic conflicts surely never belonged among those things.

Fascism and communism are, in some respects, two twins. Much of the fascism comes from the lowest classes of the society, like communism, that want to present some biological lowest common denominator as the "ultimate criterion of humanity" - because these people often have nothing else to offer than this lowest common denominator (like their not being Jews/Russian, or something like that). Well, I surely have zero (well, negative) respect to such stuff. If someone's main achievement is not to be Russian, he is probably a worthless human being.

reader Gordon said...

His posturing has the earmarks of a fascist dictator in embryo.
It may just be posturing, but is still worrying.

reader Ivan said...

Very good that Comrade Putin, thanks God, does not have any earmarks of a fascist dictator, that everything is just sexy in democratic Mother Russia. No major expenses on military there.

I thought Lubos was a classical liberal who believes that military defense is a proper government function whereas directing and financing science and education is not.

reader Gene Day said...

Hitler did the same, didn’t he? He wouldn’t even invest heavily in longer-term research areas with profound military implications such as nuclear fission. Of course this would have meant supporting Jewish science.
The formidable genius of Germany’s science and engineering was directed solely at weaponry and Germany did, in fact, lead the world in many areas of advanced weaponry.

reader Lino said...


You've invoked the laws of probability to contrast droplet from the wave equation, the first being observable while the latter is not.

Yet, if you invoke probability, then it seems you must invoke not \Psi, but \Psi squared, which is, of course, an observable.

Am I missing something here?

Also, if you don't mind, could you answer these two questions: (1)
Did Einstein believe in an ether, or not? and, (2) if he did, what was the basis for this belief?


reader Luboš Motl said...

Hi Lino, the answer is Yes, you are missing a lot, pretty much everything. For example, you are missing the fact that everything you write to be wrong is right and vice versa.

First, quantum mechanics says that the whole information in psi including the relative phases, and not just the absolute value (everything except for the single overall phase), is equally important for the values of probabilities.

I've tried to explain and later at least repeat this elementary point about 100 times, most recently 1 week ago

but this is a waste of time, of course. You are thinking about probabilities of different values of "x" and this probabilistic distribution is given by |psi|^2 only. But there is absolutely nothing special about the observable "x" or its functions.

For probabilities of other observables, such as "p", the momentum, the relative phases are actually more important than the absolute values of "psi".

Second, you are absolutely wrong when yhou say that |psi|^2 is observable. |psi|^2 isn't a linear operator on the Hilbert space which means that it is *not* an observable.

No, Einstein didn't believe in aether. More importantly, this isn't about beliefs. Everyone may believe whatever she wants, most people believe nonsense about almost everything, and it doesn't really mean much.

What's more important is that among tens of billions of people who have lived on this planet, Albert Einstein was the first one who developed the full theory proving that the aether doesn't exist and cannot exist. The theory is known as the special theory of relativity. Have you ever heard of it? If you see "E=mc^2" (pronounce: "eee equals em-see-squared") on someone's T-shirt, it's the popular equation summarizing Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory that proved that the aether couldn't exist because such an environment would spoil the democracy between different observers who are in relative uniform motion with respect to each other. The democracy would be broken at least in the presence of light or electromagnetic waves, but relativity postulates that even the laws governing the light waves must look exactly the same in all the reference frames which prohibits any environment in which light would propagate much like sound propagates via vibrations of the air (or another medium).

reader Lino said...


Let me respectfully ask this:

Isn't a lot different than simply Psi? What's the use of Psi if you can't measure it?

You invoke the Born Rule. Interestingly, Born says that he came up with this rule using a "hint" from Einstein's paper on the Photoelectric Effect. In Born's Nobel Talk he states: "Again an idea of Einstein’s gave me the lead. He had tried to make the duality of particles - light quanta or photons - and waves comprehensible by interpreting the
square of the optical wave amplitudes as probability density for the occurrence of photons."

Could you now say something about whether or not Einstein believed in an ether, and if he did, on what basis did he believe in it?

reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Lino, let me respectfully answer that any particular subset of bilinears constructed from psi is indeed very different from psi itself, and carries much less information.

Psi cannot be *measured* but it contains all the information one *knows* about the things that may be measured. Rho, the density matrix, is the most general generalization of what one can know.

In classical physics, the density matrix had a counterpart, the phase space probability distribution rho(x,p...). That also couldn't have been measured. It contained the knowledge and ignorance one had about the system.

In classical physics, one could also assume that there were particular values x(t), p(t), corresponding to an agent/observer who knows everything exactly about the system. It was the maximum knowledge and it was complete.

The counterpart of this maximum knowledge in quantum mechanics is Psi that doesn't contain any density-matrix-like diagonal probabilities but it still leads to probabilistic predictions because in quantum mechanics, even if the knowledge is the maximal one allowed by the laws of physics, most of the things - questions about the observables (like x,p, not psi, the latter is not observable, I stress again) cannot be uniquely determined from that wave function.

I have already written about 5 paragraphs about Einstein and aether in this very thread. Wasn't it enough!?

reader Gary Ehlenberger said...

QM Story

Which one?
What is the best story, from fiction to fact?

Ensemble interpretation
Max Born, 1926

Copenhagen interpretation
Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, 1927

de Broglie–Bohm theory
Louis de Broglie, 1927, David Bohm, 1952

von Neumann interpretation
John von Neumann, 1932, John Archibald Wheeler, Eugene Wigner

Quantum logic
Garrett Birkhoff, 1936

Many-worlds interpretation
Hugh Everett, 1957

Cosmological interpretation
Anthony Aguirre & Max Tegmark, 2010

Time-symmetric theories
Satosi Watanabe, 1955

Stochastic interpretation
Edward Nelson, 1966

Many-minds interpretation
H. Dieter Zeh, 1970

Consistent histories
Robert B. Griffiths, 1984

Objective collapse theories
Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber, 1986,

Penrose interpretation, 1989

Transactional interpretation
John G. Cramer, 1986

Relational interpretation
Carlo Rovelli, 1994

reader Lino said...

No, not making fun in the least. I disagree with you about some things, but have great respect for your intellect and learning. If you disagree with something, I pay attention.

And I do appreciate your response, and that you took time to answer it so fully.

As to Einstein, I don't know why, but when I saw your response to the question about Psi, I didn't see your response about Einstein. I just now found it.

Here, though, Lubos, again respectfully, I think you should look into the matter more fully. It seems that when challenged about his General Theory of Relativity, Einstein began to change his view regarding the ether. His thinking on this evolved, but the essence of his final thought on this was that the "luminiferous either" didn't exist, but that some kind of matter field existed that corresponded to the metric (I'm doing this strictly from memory, and can't recall exactly his final term) Paul Dirac also wrote a paper on his favorable view of there being an ether. You can find quotes from both at Wiki on Aether Theories.

I don't think there is any way that Einstein was wrong about SR; but I think the "ether" hasn't been understood properly. Properly understood, there should be no difference between SR as we understand it now, and SR including a properly understood ether theory. But, of course, this is no small challenge, and I don't think I'm up to that challenge. You would be, though.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Sorry, Lino, the thumb down will remain the only response of mine to this comment of yours.

reader Lino said...

From the video I looked at, the droplet moves all over the place. While an "interference" type pattern does ultimately emerge, unlike QM, there are no areas where no particles travel to. IOW, the probability never reaches zero.

On this basis, one has to be cautious in making the two models equivalent.

reader RAF III said...

Lubos - More good news Quantum mechanics apparently violates 'mathematical notions that go to the core of what numbers and counting are' and thus 'virtually the whole of mathematics' as well:
What a way to start the week!!!.

reader Luboš Motl said...

LOL, I will look at it. It's not clear to me now whether

1) the calculation is right or wrong
2) whether they actually (insanely) claim that QM has a problem because of that

reader JollyJoker said...

It sounds too much like explanations of Bell's inequalities for laymen to be anything but "there are no hidden variables".

I got a link to a new post by you in my RSS feed but apparently it doesn't lead anywhere yet. I'll assume you think everything they wrote is obvious and their claims of having something new is clearly wrong :)