“You’ll have to have a thick skin.”
Marcelo Gleiser, a college mentor of mine, emailed the warning. I’d sent a list of physics PhD programs and requested advice about which to attend. Marcelo’s and my department had fostered encouragement and consideration.
Suit up, Marcelo was saying.
Criticism fuels science, as Oxford physicist David Deutsch has written. We have choices about how we criticize. Some criticism styles reflect consideration for the criticized work’s creator. Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett has devised guidelines for “criticizing with kindness”:1
1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Scientists skip to step four often—when refereeing papers submitted to journals, when posing questions during seminars, when emailing collaborators, when colleagues sketch ideas at a blackboard. Why? Listening and criticizing require time, thought, and effort—three of a scientist’s most valuable resources. Should any scientist spend those resources on an idea of mine, s/he deserves my gratitude. Spending empathy atop time, thought, and effort can feel supererogatory. Nor do all scientists prioritize empathy and kindness. Others of us prioritize empathy but—as I have over the past five years—grown so used to its latency, I forget to demonstrate it.
Doing science requires facing not only criticism, but also “That doesn’t make sense,” “Who cares?” “Of course not,” and other morale boosters.
Doing science requires resilience.
So do measurements of quantum information (QI) scrambling. Scrambling is a subtle, late, quantum stage of equilibration2 in many-body systems. Example systems include chains of spins,3 such as in ultracold atoms, that interact with each other strongly. Exotic examples include black holes in anti-de Sitter space.4
Imagine whacking one side of a chain of interacting spins. Information about the whack will disseminate throughout the chain via entanglement.5 After a long interval (the scrambling time, ), spins across the systems will share many-body entanglement. No measurement of any few, close-together spins can disclose much about the whack. Information will have scrambled across the system.
QI scrambling has the subtlety of an assassin treading a Persian carpet at midnight. Can we observe scrambling?
A Stanford team proposed a scheme for detecting scrambling using interferometry.6 Justin Dressel, Brian Swingle, and I proposed a scheme based on weak measurements, which refrain from disturbing the measured system much. Other teams have proposed alternatives.
Many schemes rely on effective time reversal: The experimentalist must perform the quantum analog of inverting particles’ momenta. One must negate the Hamiltonian , the observable that governs how the system evolves: .
At least, the experimentalist must try. The experimentalist will likely map to . The small error could wreak havoc: QI scrambling relates to chaos, exemplified by the butterfly effect. Tiny perturbations, such as the flap of a butterfly’s wings, can snowball in chaotic systems, as by generating tornadoes. Will the snowball, obscuring observations of scrambling?
It needn’t, Brian and I wrote in a recent paper. You can divide out much of the error until .
You can detect scrambling by measuring an out-of-time-ordered correlator (OTOC), an object I’ve effused about elsewhere. Let’s denote the time- correlator by . You can infer an approximation to upon implementing an -ridden interferometry or weak-measurement protocol. Remove some steps from that protocol, Brian and I say. Infer a simpler, easier-to-measure object . Divide the two measurement outcomes to approximate the OTOC:
OTOC measurements exhibit resilience to error.
Physicists need resilience. Brian criticizes with such grace, he could serve as the poster child for Daniel Dennett’s guidelines. But not every scientist could. How can we withstand kindness-lite criticism?
By drawing confidence from what we’ve achieved, with help from mentors like Marcelo. I couldn’t tell what about me—if anything—could serve as a rock on which to plant a foot, as an undergrad. Mentors identified what I had too little experience to appreciate. You question what you don’t understand, they said. You assimilate perspectives from textbooks, lectures, practice problems, and past experiences. You scrutinize details while keeping an eye on the big picture. So don’t let so-and-so intimidate you.
I still lack my mentors’ experience, but I’ve imbibed a drop of their insight. I savor calculations that I nail, congratulate myself upon nullifying referees’ concerns, and celebrate the theorems I prove.
I’ve also created an email folder entitled “Nice messages.” In go “I loved your new paper; combining those topics was creative,” “Well done on the seminar; I’m now thinking of exploring that field,” and other rarities. The folder affords an umbrella when physics clouds gather.
Finally, I try to express appreciation of others’ work.7 Science thrives on criticism, but scientists do science. And scientists are human—undergrads, postdocs, senior researchers, and everyone else.
Doing science—and attempting to negate Hamiltonians—we get knocked down. But we can get up again.
Around the time Brian and I released “Resilience” two other groups proposed related renormalizations. Check out their schemes here and here.
1Thanks to Sean Carroll for alerting me to this gem of Dennett’s.
2A system equilibrates as its large-scale properties, like energy, flatline.
3Angular-momentum-like quantum properties
4Certain space-times different from ours
5Correlations, shareable by quantum systems, stronger than any achievable by classical systems
6The cancellation (as by a crest of one wave and a trough of another) of components of a quantum state, or the addition of components (as two waves’ crests)
7Appreciation of specific qualities. “Nice job” can reflect a speaker’s belief but often reflects a desire to buoy a receiver whose work has few merits to elaborate on. I applaud that desire and recommend reinvesting it. “Nice job” carries little content, which evaporates under repetition. Specificity provides content: “Your idea is alluringly simple but could reverberate across multiple fields” has gristle.
“How can we withstand kindness-lite criticism?”
By not investing in your ego when making public statements.
Or if you want another approach, by being grateful when mistakes are pointed out to you by colleagues, instead of them leaving the mistakes to be pointed out by others in conferences.
Pingback: Chasing Ed Jaynes’s ghost | Quantum Frontiers
Pingback: Long live Yale’s cemetery | Quantum Frontiers
Pingback: Quantum conflict resolution | Quantum Frontiers