Early Friday morning I returned from a five-day jaunt to Reykjavik, where I was taking part in the inaugural meeting of the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi).
Of course, these days one rarely “jaunts” anywhere. The flying portion of this trip, which was perhaps just a little more trouble than the average, may be summarized by: First flight delayed so many times that entire trip is postponed one day; spend 3.5 hours on phone with some of the world’s most incompetent customer service people (Travelocity), and their runners-up (Icelandair), before finally getting some help rescheduling from Delta; arrive in Iceland one day late, only to discover that you will be luggageless for at least a day; spend next 2 days in same clothes; fly back to New York; second flight delayed significantly; deal with useless and borderline rude Delta service at airport; board plane 1.5 hours late; spend 2 hours on runway; finally arrive home (at least with luggage this time) at almost 2am.
However, although I think I seriously need to review the amount of traveling I do, given how broken the system is, I must say that my time in Iceland was worth it.
We’ve discussed FQXi here before, in a guest post from Associate Scientific Director Anthony Aguirre, in which he not only laid out the philosophy and goals if the organization, but also addressed concerns that I and others had voiced about the sole current financial backer of the endeavor – the John Templeton Foundation (JTF). I have agonized over this ever since. I am clearly not in agreement with the goals of JTF. On the other hand, FQXi is independent of them, has its own charter, and is, as far as I can tell, supporting good, defensible science. They are also actively looking for a more diverse funding stream and, in fact, their seed grant from JTF will soon expire. Most certainly, if they had a number of donors, of which JTF was one, I would not spend time worrying about these issues.
In any case, earlier this year FQXi invited me to take part in their inaugural meeting and I decided that this would be a good way to dip my toe in the water and get a brief first-hand look at what they’re about, while getting to talk with colleagues old and new about a lot of intellectual issues that I spend time thinking about. So I accepted their kind invitation and submitted myself once again to the tortures of modern air travel.
The workshop was held at the Radisson SAS Saga in Reykjavik, Iceland; a place I have never been to previously, and always thought would be intriguing. Arriving early on Sunday, I checked in, cleaned my smelly self up as much as possible and headed right back out to attend the first real sessions of the meeting. The first day was filled with the only invited talks of the entire conference – overviews on Quantum Mechanics, Inflation, Non-String Quantum Gravity, String Theory (or Non-Non-String Quantum Gravity, as might have been more fair), The Late Universe, etc. Most of these talks were excellent, providing a clear summary and, most importantly, some common vocabulary useful when you have participants with such diverse experience – people interested in the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics may have a great deal to say to those fascinated by how to put a measure on eternally inflating spacetimes, but they may never know if they don’t get a common language straight.
Monday, the entire day was spent at the Blue Lagoon Spa, which sounds decadent, but … oh, okay, it was decadent. But if it makes you feel better, we had an hour of short talks in the morning there, and three hours of group discussions in the afternoon. Groups were organized on the basis of three foundational questions each participant had submitted in advance, and I ended up in an “arrow of time” group, which was fun, but not quite what I’d expected. Nevertheless, I learned quite a lot from the discussions, which is what its all about.
The spa itself was a remarkable place, with a hot pool, warmed by geothermal springs, and lined with natural mud that is supposed to make physicists pretty if applied in the correct way. None of us figured out the correct way. Here’s a picture courtesy of the extremely fun Valerie Jamieson (from New Scientist, and who has also blogged about the trip over at the New Scientist Space Blog), who I’ll mention again in a while.
Tuesday was all business. The discussion groups from Monday were supposed to report to the workshop, not on the answers they had arrived at (who’s going to solve any of these foundational questions in a day?) but rather on the questions that their discussions had raised. Our group meandered around a little in our presentation, but homed in on what is, perhaps, the only clearly defined question: Why did our universe begin in such a low entropy state? (Something we’ve discussed here at Cosmic Variance on a number of occasions. See also Sean’s discussion at Preposterous Universe).
That evening there were no organized activities, and so I had dinner with my friends Lawrence Krauss and his wife Kate at The Pearl restaurant, which overlooks Reykjavik and executes a complete rotation every two hours. Great fun indeed.
Wednesday was mostly an excursion day and, I should say, one of the more amazing of these that I’ve ever been on. The buses took us first to Thingvellir National Park, where the Icelandic parliament – one of the oldest in the world – was founded in 930. We had only a little time to survey the spectacular scenery, before moving on to Geysir National Park, home of the original geyser, after which all others are named. That one has essentially stopped spurting now, but another still goes off every 5-7 minutes. This was a good place for a quick lunch, with the geyser periodically spurting in the background.
Back on the bus, we drove out across an alien landscape of boulders and black sand until we were within a half-mile of the Langjokull glacier. Here we stopped and were supplied with heavy-duty ski suits, overshoes, gloves and helmets, before being shuttled down to the glacier itself on a huge specially-designed vehicle.
At the glacier, we paired up and were supplied with snowmobiles and a brief lesson on how to drive them. Here I am before actually driving one.
A mutual realization that it was better to be paired with someone who appeared to be paying attention to this lesson than with one of those who were gazing at the landscape ensured that Valerie Jamieson and I rode together.
This really was a remarkable trip. We rode out until all that one could see in any direction was the glacier, with the mountains and volcanoes in the distance. It was spectacular. We stopped at the halfway point and took photographs. Some of our group got into a snowball fight (a rock-and-iceball fight really). In the photograph below you can see Valerie and me on our vehicle, with some of the perpetrators in the background, most notably Wojciech Zurek (with beard), who turned out to be quite an iceball marksman.
After driving back and shedding our glacier-wear, we spent some time on science again, getting split up into new groups and assigned to discuss our new questions during the rest of the day and the evening. I ended up in a fun group with Anton Zeilinger (of quantum teleportation fame), Dmitry Budker, Markus Aspelmeyer, Valerie Jamieson and John Donoghue (who abandoned us for another group he’d already been discussing with) to discuss the question of whether we should expect that the physical constants should be changing over time.
We began this discussion on our bus on our way to the next mind-blowing destination, in this case Gullfoss (the Golden Waterfall). The photo below, taken from the Wikipedia site about Gullfoss, does a good job of conveying the splendor of this two-level waterfall that terminates in a ravine
As you might imagine, we were all pretty hungry after this. Dinner didn’t disappoint. Held at a rustic restaurant at Stokkseyri, a black sand beach on the southern coast, our lobster banquet was some of the best seafood I’ve ever had.
Thursday morning we were back to serious work, debating the results of the previous day’s group discussions. Well, as serious as work can be when the debaters must wear viking hats! Watching Lawrence Krauss and Fred Adams debate in this way, one brandishing a sword and the other an axe, has to be seen to be believed (sorry – I have no photos). The presentations were a little spotty but there were some definite highlights including, for me, the group that had debated the interpretation of quantum mechanics and the one that had talked about eternal inflation, although the latter didn’t get as much time as I’d have liked to see.
This was a fascinating and intellectually stimulating conference in an unusual and dramatic location; so I’m glad I went. Perhaps best of all, there wasn’t a hint of any religion, spirituality, or any such non-science about the whole meeting, which I was delighted with. I returned exhausted, however. The conference itself was full with planned activities and talks, and it was nice to finish up the days with a beer in the bar with friends. But this left plenty of sleep time, and I’d hoped to take advantage of this because life has been a little hectic recently, with a ridiculous number of papers approaching completion. I’ll probably blog about them in a month or so when they’re done.
But it turned out to be difficult for me to sleep in Reykjavik. At this time of year it doesn’t really get dark, but just becomes dusky for a few hours from around 11:30 until 2 or so. Although the hotel provides an eye mask, I found it uncomfortable and the light coupled with a little jet lag meant sleep didn’t come easily. On the plus side, I was able to get a few hours extra time to calculate and write each day. On the minus side, four hours sleep or so a night doesn’t really cut it.
Nevertheless, what a week!
(Others blogging about this trip include Eugene Lim and Scott Aaronson)
July 29th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Wow! That sounds like so much fun. What do you have to do to get invited to these sorts of things? Because whatever process it is, I’m making it my life goal now.
July 29th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
For the ignorant: what’s wrong with the Templeton foundation?
July 29th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Hi Mollishka. I’m not saying everyone should feel this way, but they support many projects designed to reconcile science with religion and that imply that science finds evidence for God. I personally do not feel that there is a sensible way to fundamentally reconcile science and religion and therefore wouldn’t want my name (no matter how useless to them it might be) associated with that mission.
They aren’t evil (they’re not the Discovery Institute), but this is just how I feel about this (and I know many others who feel the same way).
Without going into many details, which would take an entire thorough post, let me just provide one example from one part of a mission statement of something they support
July 29th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
I am continuously amazed how often scientists (or is it “scientists:?) bring religion into a discussion when there is not prior mention of religion in the discussion.
I searched through this article several times trying to find the connection between the title (“Science and no Religion in Reykjavik!”) and anything in the article.
I had not discovered the connection via Templeton (and still don’t know anything about them.
It is almost as if you all are afraid of something. Who is that you are trying to convince? (Clue: Won’t most people who read these articles be convinced already? And won’t the balance be unconvinceable? (If there is such a word.))
Why mention it in the title and not address it in the paper?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Sounds like a great conference, sorry I had to miss it. But the description of travel snafus ameliorates the regret just a bit.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
“Our group meandered around a little in our presentation, but homed in on what is, perhaps, the only clearly defined question: Why did our universe begin in such a low entropy state?”
So what’s the answer?
July 29th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Larry Sheldon. I’ve mentioned why it was pertinent in the article (try clicking on some of the links one of the times you read through the post) and in a response here. Also, this has been a hot topic of discussion here and on Sean’s and my individual blogs even prior to the existence of CV for quite some while. So I might suggest that you avoid these kinds of comments unless you understand fully what’s going on. You might appear an uninformed prick if you don’t, and I’m sure you’re a perfectly reasonable person who doesn’t want that.
Lambchop of God. We really didn’t have one as far as I’m concerned, although it is possible that some of my group members felt otherwise. Sean is actually the expert on this site when it comes to this, and he has some firm ideas that I linked to in the post.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Marc — in the kind vein of “criticism, like charity, starts at home” — after taking his tax dollars (I presume, may well be wrong there) and spending a week at a spa in Iceland with them, I think your response to Larry Sheldon is somewhat less than respectful and appropriate.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Mark — sorry, too many Marc’s (Kamonkowski, …) and Mark’s in cosmology.
July 30th, 2007 at 1:03 am
Ellipsis, you were wrong about the tax dollars (which would be apparent if you have actually read the post carefully).
July 30th, 2007 at 1:06 am
Eugene — the post says that JTF is the financial backer of FQXi, not necessarily of individual trips. But you may be right. However, I think the statement still stands.
July 30th, 2007 at 3:27 am
“Sean is actually the expert on this site when it comes to this, and he has some firm ideas that I linked to in the post.”
Sure he is, but it would be nice to hear what your gang had to say about it too.
July 30th, 2007 at 5:52 am
To try to reconcile science and religions sound to me utterly absurd. I have had too many (patient) discussions with people who functions in this vein. It always ends the same way, contradictions or “there must be something else, whatever form”. My experience tells me that their real exercise, is to try to mold major stream discoveries to inconsistent and basically emotional endoctrination.
July 30th, 2007 at 6:01 am
Ellipsis. I have no problem with criticism, but I have little patience for comments of the tone of the one I replied to. My response isn’t respectful – you’re right – because the comment wasn’t. I think it was entirely appropriate. Criticism is one thing. But people jumping in without reading what they claim to have searched through several times and then being kind of rude about it don’t deserve any kind of thoughtful response in my opinion.
As Eugene points out, no tax dollars were harmed during my trip (and we didn’t spend a week at a spa).
Myhatma Gander. I actually think that, on this particular question, we basically rehashed the question that many people have asked and finally decided that the question of “Why does our universe begin in such a low entropy state?” was the right one. I don’t think there was anything new, and I think the posts I pointed to have a more clear description of what we eventually arrived at than I’d do justice to.
July 30th, 2007 at 7:58 am
A couple of unrelated comments:
1/
“…people interested in the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics may have a great deal to say to those fascinated by how to put a measure on eternally inflating spacetimes, but they may never know if they don’t get a common language straight.”
Can you flesh this out a bit, or give a link?
2/ When I read the title of the post, I thought you might be referring to this:
http://9rules.com/science/notes/3496/
July 30th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Seriously, is FQXi looking for good ideas from amateurs/independent scholars etc. too? It doesn’t help to think in terms of stereotypes like inventions of perpetual motion machines. Sometimes an outsider or semi-outsider can advance thinking by just asking ask a good question. You could consider for example the discussion thread I started at sci.physics.research in 2000, which climbed to #1 and a few shifting top hits on Google search for “quantum measurement paradox.” For example Hit #2 gives a good rundown of the question, posed as a “what if we … could we….?”
Most commenters agreed it was at least a good try and brain-teaser, and maybe not with a simple accepted answer to be affirmed and noted. (My later version of that paradox involves sending a polarized photon through the same half-wave plate many times, with a corrector to reverse it’s circularity again after each pass, instead of using a set of many HW plates. The point is, I said you could measure the magnitude of circular polarization, like plus, linear, negative, etc., not just yes/no results, based on how much angular momentum was collected after many passes. Hey, if many photons of given polarization passing through once each would give that final result, then one photon passing through a plate many times should also: photons don’t have “identity.” This is related to the now-hip concept of “weak measurements” that looks more valid all the time, AFAIK. Comments?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
They are indeed interested in good ideas from independent researchers. You can find out more in their FAQs.
July 30th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
No worries. To get back to religion & science, perhaps even fun-killing agnostics like me, and atheists too, and everyone else, would do well to read John 8:7. Cheers.
July 30th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Good to know Eugene and I can be trusted
July 30th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Got it. If I don’t drink the Koolaid and agree 100%, don’t ask any questions.
Sorry I mistook you for an interesting source of science.
July 30th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Lighten up, Sheldon.
July 30th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
No Larry Sheldon, that’s not at all what I said. Nobody is demanding you agree with them. However, if you’re going to comment the way you did, I’m going to call you on it.
July 30th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Larry,
The key point you are missing is that most people ‘know’ about the Templeton – Religion connection. The fact that you did not led to your comment.
Had you been aware of the connection the title of the post would have made perfect sense.
Elliot
July 31st, 2007 at 8:00 am
thanks for that report!
interestingly, my parents just left for a vacation in Iceland while a friend just came back. seems at least Iceland’s tourism is going to benefit from global warming, real or imaginary.
B.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Thanks for an interesting article. I really enjoyed reading about your adventures especially since they brought back memeories of having been to most of the same places. I added this website’s RSS to my science feeds and it is nice to get an occasional distraction like this, sort of related to science but not.
Also thanks for the links. I’ve already ordered a copy of “Under the Glacier” by Halldor Laxness which was mentioned in one of the posts about this trip on Eugene Lim’s blog. It was also interesting reading Scott Aaronson’s blog.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Amplifying Levi’s question 1 (comment #15), what was said about the problem of putting a probability measure on eternally inflating spacetimes, or on possible parameter sets in the Landscape in general? Anything later than
D. Schwartz-Perlov and A. Vilenkin:Probabilities in the Bousso-Polchinski multiverse. JCAP 0606, 010 (2006), hep-th/0601162.
? I have a possible research reason for asking—all pointers to recent papers or commentary on the “measure problem” are welcome.
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:56 pm
my commentary here.
Suppose I should learn how to do that right. Anyway as a disinterested
hecklerobserver I see a parallel with doctors & drug companies.