Carver Mead: Finish the physics revolution

2/19/2013 9:04 AM EST

Carver Mead is absolutely right in making the leap from daily progress to thinking outside the box and "finishing" the work on the law of physics. Unfortunately nor many engineers can afford to think such lofty thoughts and must concentrate on the daily engineering tasks at hand. But that is what is great about such a premiere technical conference as the ISSCC. Organizers always find a way to invite keynoters that expand the mind of the audience and provide the necessary "what-if" for them.

2/19/2013 10:36 AM EST

Amazing stuff. He should make an appearance on the Big Bang Theory!

http://bit.ly/dI3hcF

2/19/2013 10:39 AM EST

If there is one constant in science it is that the majority fear the implications of change. Hundreds of years ago one were simply put to death for daring the present. Today, as Carver points out, they are buried under arrogance.

2/19/2013 11:08 AM EST

Physics is the foundation of everything. I worry now days how many students have patient to take complex electrodynamics, solid state or quantum physics. For our generation, this is a MUST to get advance degree...

2/19/2013 4:50 PM EST

Interesting talk, but I'm not sure I buy it. There are only about a zillion different misconceptions the average joe labors under most of his life, which his own intuition says make a lot of sense. Sometimes, it just becomes imperative to "do the math." Or you're indeed never going to move forward. Is this arrogance or is this reality?

My favorite recent example of this is something called the Iris Engine. Look it up. Intuitively, if someone tells you that this Iris Engine has a lot more "working area" than a piston engine, and that this much greater "working area" translates to better efficiency, many people would be struck by the brilliance of the concept. Wow, how come "they" didn't think of this sooner?

Intuition is tricky. That conclusion is, of course, false. In a heat engine, Carnot cycle, efficiency is a function of the temperature difference between combustion and exhaust. That temperature difference, in an internal combustion engine, is governed entirely by the compression ratio, and *not at all* by the "working area."

Is this intuitive? I'm not sure. It is once you've done the math, of course. The real answer can be derived using the gas law (PV=nRT) and Boyle's law (P1V1=P2V2).

My thesis is, truly brilliant people, like Prof. Meade, not to mention Albert Einstein, may well be able to intuit a lot of concepts without having to do the math. I very much doubt most people have this luxury. And even these brilliant people spend most of their lives attempting to prove what their intuition might have suggested to them in an instant. Because even they usually get it wrong, at least partially.

2/19/2013 7:26 PM EST

I think the next big thing (if there is one) is understanding spiritual power/force.

ie . how devil functions.

2/20/2013 9:47 PM EST

I talked to one former ISSCC keynoter who called this talk a bit "mystical"

2/20/2013 11:05 PM EST

We still don't know about dark matter and other dimensions. Much learning to do.

2/21/2013 2:14 AM EST

It would be interesting to see the video of his speech if there is one.

2/21/2013 11:27 AM EST

Mead is absolutely right that to keep progress going for the next 20-30 years we will need a different approach to engineering based on more sophisticated physics. The math for quantum physics is challenging but the "intuitive" concepts are even more challenging.

2/21/2013 2:14 PM EST

You can't go wrong by understanding as much math as possible. However, beware of becoming a mathematician.

There was a student-targeted publication I used to see when I was a kid, and its key motto emblazoned throughout each issue was "Chance favors the prepared mind". I would add that intuition, visualizations, even meditative activity can be spectacularly productive IF you have some good grounding in the physical and mathematical fundamentals.

It's not sufficient or necessary to acquire these latter via an advanced degree, but it makes it a whole lot easier, especially if you find some good teachers. The danger is getting blinkered and over-specialized, and also protective of your negative ego, which will devastate speculation and possible insight.

A while ago someone posted in a chatroom a nice problem, an apparent geometrical contradiction. When I told him what the solution was he said NO that's what everyone says. But my grad student math friend explained that it's about tessellations blah blah. I said your grad student friend panicked when he couldn't see the answer from elementary plane geometry, and proceeded to baffle you with BS. He should be ashamed.

2/22/2013 12:43 AM EST

It is difficult to grasp one's imagination unless we become some part of it.
Do not know what to comment about this, but certainly we have become the most contradictory species on earth.
Nothing can help us here unless we learn how to maintain and sustain what we have.
For e.g., we speak of great innovations, but the products die at a faster rate than it took to build. Oh yeah, that is Moore's law..So how is it going to help.
Not to say that it might have made billions rendering worthless in few years. Yet, a lot of people complain about NASA's funding, for which there is no direct material return.

Imagine a day in 1500s or 1600s,can we survive it? Oh, that is a reality show..

Unless we practice science and respect it, no intuition or technically sophisticated mathematics would help. Are we simplifying or complicating? Time will tell for sure. The future looks bleak.

2/22/2013 9:08 AM EST

My take on this speach is that this is a proud man looking at his end-game who is trying to inspire thought, and maybe he's even looking for a protege. By the reaction I see here he has achieved at least one of those goals.

2/22/2013 12:32 PM EST

I didn’t hear Carver Mead’s presentation, but I can feel his words in my mind as they are quoted here. There is a ring of truth in what he said, although perhaps not eloquently expressed. As we get older, especially those of us exposed to higher education, we begin to realize just how little we really know about the Universe. Sure, we’ve managed to nail down the edges of a few general principles enough to accomplish useful things, but no one sees the Big Picture yet. We may never see it.

Einstein complained that God doesn’t play dice. My apologizes, Albert, but that is exactly the way God appears to work. Dice is God’s game and the dice are loaded. When God manipulates probabilities (only God would know how that can happen) to achieve a desired outcome, we are but observers instantiating each event and perhaps calling them miracles. The rest of the time it’s Good Orderly Direction as the Universe rolls along on autopilot. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. Ignore that man behind the curtain.

2/23/2013 5:04 PM EST

Physics cannot predict what I will do next (besides hitting "Submit Comment" in a few seconds). As the saying goes, a group of physicists goes to scale a mountain and upon finally reaching the summit they are greeted by a band of theologians who have been camped there for some time.

The news this week was that there might soon be a news-related story on dark matter! I'm looking forward to it.

2/23/2013 5:45 PM EST

"Mead co-authored a seminal text on VLSI design."

Which text?

2/23/2013 5:52 PM EST

I don't think any new physics would be valid without experiments. Intuition, math, theory not enough. I hope that was not missed on the audience.

2/25/2013 4:27 AM EST

"Scientists and engineers need to challenge orthodox thinking, he said, giving examples of little known critics of physicists such as Newton and Werner Heisenberg." ~ Rick Merritt

What critics were there of Newton and Heisenberg? I'm pretty sure you are NOT saying Newton and Heisenberg were critics of physicists. Miles Mathis corrects, he says, some of the maths used by the "masters" of physics.