Quantum Escapism

Today an e-mail chain I ’ m on , where contributors swap wacky physics theories , veered into wacky political theories .
Chinese communists , one physicist insisted , are orchestrating protests that have been roiling U.S. cities .
China wants to make Donald Trump look bad so he loses the fall election to Joe Biden , who is a Chinese puppet .
Others on the chain denounced and cheered this conspiracy theory .
Seeking relief from the madness , I shut my laptop and opened The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics , by philosopher R.I.G .
Hughes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science writer Jim Holt .
Hughes attempts to show that the mathematics of quantum mechanics , which can seem terribly arbitrary and ad hoc , has sensible underpinnings .
Although Hughes ’ s treatise baffles me , especially when it devolves into strings of arcane symbols , it still cheers me up .
I ’ ve been retreating into quantum esoterica a lot lately .
Last spring , after COVID-19 ruined my summer plans , I decided to pursue a long-standing fantasy : learning , or trying to learn , quantum mechanics , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which at the risk of grandiosity I call My Quantum Experiment , has served as a refuge for me this summer .
Occasionally , I worry that it ’ s irresponsible to dwell on quantum puzzles while the world is spiraling out of control .
Shouldn ’ t I devote myself to researching and writing about COVID-19 and other problems plaguing us ?
Inequality and poverty , racism , sexism , militarism , climate change and so on ?
The problem is , my columns on these issues have zero effect , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To counter those emotions , I binge on Netflix—I just discovered the meta comedy series Community—and on quantum mechanics .
Some physicists and philosophers , especially those seeking bestseller-hood , claim that quantum mechanics , if you squint at it from the right angle , can be spiritually consoling .
Here are three supposedly comforting quantum implications : • The crucial role of observation , or measurement , in quantum mechanics implies that reality requires consciousness .
Our existence matters , we were meant to be here .
As John Wheeler said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• The uncertainty principle and quantum randomness demolish determinism , the idea that we are all bound by unbreakable chains of causes and effects .
Far from being locked into a preordained trajectory , nature is creative , open-ended , giving us ample room for free will .
• What physicist Eugene Wigner called the “ unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics ” suggests that a deity with a fondness for math created the world .
When we untangle the twisted geometries at the core of things , we discover the mind of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ propositions ?
Sure , sometimes , on good days .
I have a weakness for sentimental metaphysics .
And even disregarding quantum mechanics , it ’ s easy to concoct reasons to believe that God and free will exist , and that we matter .
But the comfort I derive from quantum mechanics stems not from its feel-good implications but from its obscurity , even opacity .
I enjoy being immersed in abstractions of abstractions , the meanings of which elude me .
As I struggle to grasp eigenvectors or Hermitian operators , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into insignificance .
And every now and then I think I ’ m getting somewhere , which gives me a fleeting thrill .
That happened recently as I muddled through Hughes ’ s argument that Hilbert spaces are peculiarly suited to representing quantum things .
Hilbert spaces aren ’ t spaces in the ordinary sense with width , length and depth , like your bedroom or the sky .
They are habitats for vectors , which you can think of as arrows of a specific length pointing in a specific direction .
Vectors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to quarks .
Let ’ s say you represent the state of an electron with a vector , V , in a Hilbert space with three axes , x , y and z .
( Remember , these aren ’ t the dimensions we live in . )
Then V equals the sum of three shorter , orthogonal vectors along the x , y and z axes .
Call these vectors V , V and V .
According to the rules of vector arithmetic , V = V + V + V .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not really , when Hughes says the Pythagorean theorem is the key to understanding Hilbert spaces .
As always with quantum math , there ’ s a twist .
Instead of the Pythagorean theorem I ’ m familiar with , Hughes presents one for three dimensions .
“ Pythagoras ’ theorem tells us , ” Hughes writes , that |V |2 + |V |2 + |V |2 = V2 .
Really ?
The Pythagorean theorem works in 3-D ?
I never knew that .
Also , those vertical lines mean you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Why ?
Shouldn ’ t squaring the vectors make them positive ?
Ordinarily , but quantum vectors are often expressed as complex numbers , which contain imaginary numbers , based on the square root of negative one .
That ’ s why you need those vertical lines .
Why imaginary numbers ?
Because they work , is the short answer .
I hope to know the real answer someday .
Anyway , these squared vector values , |V |2 , |V |2 and |V |2 , represent the probabilities that the electron @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you measure it .
It must be in some state , so all these fractional probabilities must add up to one .
That is also the value of V , which can be thought of as the hypotenuse , and hence of V2 .
So |V |2 + |V |2 + |V |2 = V2 = 1 .
Getting the probabilities to equal one is called normalization .
Now everything is starting to make sense .
All these seemingly arbitrary mathematical rules are based on the Pythagorean theorem plus probability theory .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which computer scientist Scott Aaronson calls quantum mechanics just a “ generalization of probability theory.
” Many physicists fail to appreciate this fact , Aaronson says , because they have been poorly taught .
Courses on quantum mechanics usually retrace its historical development , during which physicists devised “ a complicated patchwork of ideas ” to account for experimental anomalies like the blackbody paradox .
Aaronson continues : “ Today , in the quantum information age , the fact that all the physicists had to learn quantum this way seems increasingly humorous .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in quantum field theory—people who 've spent years calculating path integrals of mind-boggling complexity—ask me to explain the Bell inequality to them .
That 's like Andrew Wiles asking me to explain the Pythagorean Theorem.
” ( Emphasis in original . )
Andrew Wiles is the mathematician who proved Fermat ’ s last theorem in the 1990s , and the Bell inequality is a mathematical proof related to a quantum paradox called nonlocality .
Hughes ’ s riff , and Aaronson ’ s , suggest that quantum mechanics , in spite of its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as simple as the Pythagorean theorem , which I learned in my childhood .
These epiphanies never last .
As I keep reading , I lapse back into befuddlement , or , at best , a dim quasicomprehension that eggs me on .
Moreover , reality keeps intruding on my quantum reveries .
That happened recently when , eager for fresh air , I stuffed a quantum textbook , a notebook and a collapsible chair in my backpack , pulled on a face mask and left my 11th floor apartment .
The elevator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a young man in a muscle shirt stepped on , wearing no mask .
I said , You can ’ t get on without a mask .
Glaring at me , he pulled a mask from his pocket and pulled it over his face , saying , Happy ?
Before he stepped on the elevator , this guy was in a superposition of states .
But as soon as we interacted , his wave function collapsed into jerkitude .
My blood was still boiling when I arrived at a park near my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the Hudson River .
I found a shady spot between several chattering young families and assembled my collapsible chair .
Soon I was struggling so mightily to comprehend wave functions that I forgot about the jerk on the elevator and the conspiracy theorists on my physics list .
I occasionally looked up from my book to glance at the Hudson , its surface crisscrossed by waves , and at the exuberant moms , dads and kids around me .
It was the kind of sunny , sparkly day that makes it hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , all the anger and fear .
I thought : What if you could construct a wave function for the United States ?
What would it show ?
We would be suspended in a superposition of many states , from okay to very , very bad .
This fall , the presidential election will serve as a test , a measurement , that collapses the wave function of America and reveals who we really are .
Then more than ever , I may need to retreat into My Quantum Experiment .
Richard Feynman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ Do not keep saying to yourself , ‘ But how can it be like that ?
’ because you will get ‘ down the drain , ’ into a blind alley from which no one has escaped .
Nobody knows how it can be like that.
” Hughes and other sages reject Feynman ’ s stance as defeatist .
I find it heartening .
I like the thought of slipping down the drain of a bottomless mystery as the world collapses over and over again around me .
Postscript : Thanks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ physics David Albert for fact-checking this column .
Hossenfelder , who rejects free will , says quantum mechanics “ makes room for fundamental randomness , ” but “ there is no ‘ will ’ in this.
” Albert said “ it might puzzle the reader that you talk ( perfectly correctly ) about the ‘ lengths ’ of the vectorial inhabitants of Hilbert spaces just after having said that ‘ Hilbert spaces aren ’ t spaces in the ordinary sense with width , length and depth , like your bedroom or the sky.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ width , length , depth ’ with something like ‘ up-down , right-left , backwards-forwards ’ ?
” Otherwise , Albert and Hossenfelder okayed the piece , so please blame them for errors .
String Theory Does Not Win a Nobel , and I Win a Bet See also “ Tragedy and Telepathy , ” a chapter in my free online book Mind-Body Problems .

Today an e-mail chain I’m on, where contributors swap wacky physics theories, veered into wacky political theories. Chinese communists, one physicist insisted, are orchestrating protests that have been roiling U.S. cities. China wants to make Donald Trump look bad so he loses the fall election to Joe Biden, who is a Chinese puppet. Others on the chain denounced and cheered this conspiracy theory.
Seeking relief from the madness, I shut my laptop and opened The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, by philosopher R.I.G. Hughes, a 1989 book recommended to me by science writer Jim Holt. Hughes attempts to show that the mathematics of quantum mechanics, which can seem terribly arbitrary and ad hoc, has sensible underpinnings. Although Hughes’s treatise baffles me, especially when it devolves into strings of arcane symbols, it still cheers me up.
I’ve been retreating into quantum esoterica a lot lately. Last spring, after COVID-19 ruined my summer plans, I decided to pursue a long-standing fantasy: learning, or trying to learn, quantum mechanics, math and all. The project, which at the risk of grandiosity I call My Quantum Experiment, has served as a refuge for me this summer.
Occasionally, I worry that it’s irresponsible to dwell on quantum puzzles while the world is spiraling out of control. Shouldn’t I devote myself to researching and writing about COVID-19 and other problems plaguing us? Inequality and poverty, racism, sexism, militarism, climate change and so on? The problem is, my columns on these issues have zero effect, which leaves me feeling frustrated and depressed. To counter those emotions, I binge on Netflix—I just discovered the meta comedy series Community—and on quantum mechanics.
Some physicists and philosophers, especially those seeking bestseller-hood, claim that quantum mechanics, if you squint at it from the right angle, can be spiritually consoling. Here are three supposedly comforting quantum implications:
The crucial role of observation, or measurement, in quantum mechanics implies that reality requires consciousness. Our existence matters, we were meant to be here. As John Wheeler said, this is a “participatory” universe.
The uncertainty principle and quantum randomness demolish determinism, the idea that we are all bound by unbreakable chains of causes and effects. Far from being locked into a preordained trajectory, nature is creative, open-ended, giving us ample room for free will.
What physicist Eugene Wigner called the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” suggests that a deity with a fondness for math created the world. When we untangle the twisted geometries at the core of things, we discover the mind of this Geek God.
Do I believe these propositions? Sure, sometimes, on good days. I have a weakness for sentimental metaphysics. And even disregarding quantum mechanics, it’s easy to concoct reasons to believe that God and free will exist, and that we matter.
But the comfort I derive from quantum mechanics stems not from its feel-good implications but from its obscurity, even opacity. I enjoy being immersed in abstractions of abstractions, the meanings of which elude me. As I struggle to grasp eigenvectors or Hermitian operators, the real world and its troubles fade into insignificance. And every now and then I think I’m getting somewhere, which gives me a fleeting thrill.
That happened recently as I muddled through Hughes’s argument that Hilbert spaces are peculiarly suited to representing quantum things. Hilbert spaces aren’t spaces in the ordinary sense with width, length and depth, like your bedroom or the sky. They are habitats for vectors, which you can think of as arrows of a specific length pointing in a specific direction. Vectors can describe anything, from human faces to quarks.
Let’s say you represent the state of an electron with a vector, V, in a Hilbert space with three axes, x, y and z. (Remember, these aren’t the dimensions we live in.) Then V equals the sum of three shorter, orthogonal vectors along the x, y and z axes. Call these vectors V X , V Y and V Z . According to the rules of vector arithmetic, V = V X + V Y + V Z .
I’m getting this, but not really, when Hughes says the Pythagorean theorem is the key to understanding Hilbert spaces. As always with quantum math, there’s a twist. Instead of the Pythagorean theorem I’m familiar with, Hughes presents one for three dimensions. “Pythagoras’ theorem tells us,” Hughes writes, that |V x |2 + |V y |2 + |V z |2 = V2. Really? The Pythagorean theorem works in 3-D? I never knew that.
Also, those vertical lines mean you’re taking the absolute value of each vector. Why? Shouldn’t squaring the vectors make them positive? Ordinarily, but quantum vectors are often expressed as complex numbers, which contain imaginary numbers, based on the square root of negative one. That’s why you need those vertical lines. Why imaginary numbers? Because they work, is the short answer. I hope to know the real answer someday.
Anyway, these squared vector values, |V x |2, |V y |2 and |V z |2, represent the probabilities that the electron will be in a particular state when you measure it. It must be in some state, so all these fractional probabilities must add up to one. That is also the value of V, which can be thought of as the hypotenuse, and hence of V2. So |V x |2 + |V y |2 + |V z |2 = V2 = 1. Getting the probabilities to equal one is called normalization.
Now everything is starting to make sense. All these seemingly arbitrary mathematical rules are based on the Pythagorean theorem plus probability theory. I’m reminded of a lecture in which computer scientist Scott Aaronson calls quantum mechanics just a “generalization of probability theory.” Many physicists fail to appreciate this fact, Aaronson says, because they have been poorly taught. Courses on quantum mechanics usually retrace its historical development, during which physicists devised “a complicated patchwork of ideas” to account for experimental anomalies like the blackbody paradox. Aaronson continues:
“Today, in the quantum information age, the fact that all the physicists had to learn quantum this way seems increasingly humorous. For example, I've had experts in quantum field theory—people who've spent years calculating path integrals of mind-boggling complexity—ask me to explain the Bell inequality to them. That's like Andrew Wiles asking me to explain the Pythagorean Theorem.” (Emphasis in original.)
Andrew Wiles is the mathematician who proved Fermat’s last theorem in the 1990s, and the Bell inequality is a mathematical proof related to a quantum paradox called nonlocality. Hughes’s riff, and Aaronson’s, suggest that quantum mechanics, in spite of its daunting reputation, is conceptually simple, as simple as the Pythagorean theorem, which I learned in my childhood.
These epiphanies never last. As I keep reading, I lapse back into befuddlement, or, at best, a dim quasicomprehension that eggs me on. Moreover, reality keeps intruding on my quantum reveries. That happened recently when, eager for fresh air, I stuffed a quantum textbook, a notebook and a collapsible chair in my backpack, pulled on a face mask and left my 11th floor apartment.
The elevator stopped a few floors below mine, and a young man in a muscle shirt stepped on, wearing no mask. I said, You can’t get on without a mask. Glaring at me, he pulled a mask from his pocket and pulled it over his face, saying, Happy? Before he stepped on the elevator, this guy was in a superposition of states. But as soon as we interacted, his wave function collapsed into jerkitude.
My blood was still boiling when I arrived at a park near my building, a grassy pier that juts into the Hudson River. I found a shady spot between several chattering young families and assembled my collapsible chair. Soon I was struggling so mightily to comprehend wave functions that I forgot about the jerk on the elevator and the conspiracy theorists on my physics list.
I occasionally looked up from my book to glance at the Hudson, its surface crisscrossed by waves, and at the exuberant moms, dads and kids around me. It was the kind of sunny, sparkly day that makes it hard to imagine all the misery out there, all the anger and fear.
I thought: What if you could construct a wave function for the United States? What would it show? We would be suspended in a superposition of many states, from okay to very, very bad. This fall, the presidential election will serve as a test, a measurement, that collapses the wave function of America and reveals who we really are. Then more than ever, I may need to retreat into My Quantum Experiment.
Richard Feynman warned against trying to understand quantum mechanics: “Do not keep saying to yourself, ‘But how can it be like that?’ because you will get ‘down the drain,’ into a blind alley from which no one has escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.” Hughes and other sages reject Feynman’s stance as defeatist. I find it heartening. I like the thought of slipping down the drain of a bottomless mystery as the world collapses over and over again around me.
Postscript: Thanks to physicist Sabine Hossenfelder and philosopher of physics David Albert for fact-checking this column. Hossenfelder, who rejects free will, says quantum mechanics “makes room for fundamental randomness,” but “there is no ‘will’ in this.” Albert said “it might puzzle the reader that you talk (perfectly correctly) about the ‘lengths’ of the vectorial inhabitants of Hilbert spaces just after having said that ‘Hilbert spaces aren’t spaces in the ordinary sense with width, length and depth, like your bedroom or the sky.’ Maybe it would help to replace ‘width, length, depth’ with something like ‘up-down, right-left, backwards-forwards’?” Otherwise, Albert and Hossenfelder okayed the piece, so please blame them for errors.
Further Reading:
My Quantum Experiment
Meta-Post: Posts on Physics
String Theory Does Not Win a Nobel, and I Win a Bet
What’s Wrong with Physics
Making Sense of Quantum Mechanics
David Bohm, Quantum Mechanics and Enlightenment
See also “Tragedy and Telepathy,” a chapter in my free online book Mind-Body Problems.


scientificamerican--2020-08-23--The False Logic behind Science Denial

The False Logic behind Science Denial

In college , I learned about the myriad logical fallacies that pervade our world .
Good logic , it turned out , was pretty restrictive .
It consisted primarily of modus ponens— “ If A is true , then B is true .
A is true .
Therefore , B is true ” —and modus tollens— “ If A is true , then B is true .
B is not true .
Therefore , A is not true.
” In contrast , there is a universe of logical fallacies .
In science , the most vexing typically takes the following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ P , then Q. I design an experiment to see if Q obtains .
It does .
Therefore , P is true .
Sadly , this conclusion is logically incorrect .
Q might hold for a variety of reasons having little or nothing to do with my theory .
Yet scientists make this mistake all the time , which led philosopher Karl Popper to argue that the method of science is—or at least should be—falsification .
Popper insisted that one can never prove that a theory is true , because that would require @ @ @ @ @ @ @ circumstance , which is impossible .
But just a single counterexample can prove a theory false .
While Popper 's theory was profoundly counterintuitive , many scientists were attracted to it for its clarity and ( apparent ) logical rigor .
Yet there is a logical flaw here , too .
My experiment could have failed for reasons having nothing to do with the theory itself .
My experimental setup , for example , might have been insufficiently sensitive to detect the predicted effect .
This problem has no logical resolution , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( asking which explanation is most consistent with evidence from a variety of sources ) or inference to the best explanation ( looking at a problem from a variety of angles and seeing which explanations hold up best ) .
All this is to say that logical fallacies are everywhere and not always easily refuted .
Truth , at least in science , is not self-evident .
And this helps to explain why science denial is easy to generate and hard to slay .
Today we live in a world where science denial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 , is rampant , informed by fallacies of all kinds .
John Cook of George Mason University has , for example , undertaken an analysis of the logical fallacies and distortions tied to climate change denial , which include jumping to conclusions , cherry-picking data , raising impossible expectations , relying on fake experts , encouraging conspiracy theories and questioning the motivation of scientists .
But there is a meta-fallacy—an über-fallacy if you will—that motivates these other , specific fallacies .
It also explains why so many of the same people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change also question the evidence related to COVID-19 .
Given how common it is , it is remarkable that philosophers have failed to give it a formal name .
But I think we can view it as a variety of what sociologists call implicatory denial .
I interpret implicatory denial as taking this form : If P , then Q .
But I do n't like Q !
Therefore , P must be wrong .
This is the logic ( or illogic ) that underlies most science rejection .
Climate change : I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the market ” has failed and that we need government intervention to remedy the market failure .
Evolutionary theory : I am offended by the suggestion that life is random and meaningless and that there is no God .
COVID-19 : I resent staying home , losing income or being told by the government what do to .
In many cases , these objections are based on misunderstandings ; evolutionary theory does not prove the nonexistence of God .
In others , the implications are real enough .
Climate change is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action to address .
And absent a system for widespread testing and contact tracing , there was no known way to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the U.S. without the majority of us staying home .
COVID-19 has shown how dangerous the fallacy of implicatory denial is .
When we reject evidence because we do not like what it implies , we put ourselves at risk .
The U.S. could have acted more quickly to contain COVID-19 .
If we had , we would have saved both lives and jobs .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the way of our desires .
Sooner or later , denial crashes on the rocks of reality .
The only question is whether it crashes before or after we get out of the way .
JOIN THE CONVERSATION ONLINE Visit Scientific American on Facebook and Twitter or send a letter to the editor : editors @ sciam.com

In college, I learned about the myriad logical fallacies that pervade our world. Good logic, it turned out, was pretty restrictive. It consisted primarily of modus ponens—“If A is true, then B is true. A is true. Therefore, B is true”—and modus tollens—“If A is true, then B is true. B is not true. Therefore, A is not true.”
In contrast, there is a universe of logical fallacies. In science, the most vexing typically takes the following form: My theory says: if P, then Q. I design an experiment to see if Q obtains. It does. Therefore, P is true. Sadly, this conclusion is logically incorrect. Q might hold for a variety of reasons having little or nothing to do with my theory. Yet scientists make this mistake all the time, which led philosopher Karl Popper to argue that the method of science is—or at least should be—falsification. Popper insisted that one can never prove that a theory is true, because that would require you to test it in every conceivable circumstance, which is impossible. But just a single counterexample can prove a theory false.
While Popper's theory was profoundly counterintuitive, many scientists were attracted to it for its clarity and (apparent) logical rigor. Yet there is a logical flaw here, too. My experiment could have failed for reasons having nothing to do with the theory itself. My experimental setup, for example, might have been insufficiently sensitive to detect the predicted effect. This problem has no logical resolution, but scientists grapple with it mostly through consilience (asking which explanation is most consistent with evidence from a variety of sources) or inference to the best explanation (looking at a problem from a variety of angles and seeing which explanations hold up best).
All this is to say that logical fallacies are everywhere and not always easily refuted. Truth, at least in science, is not self-evident. And this helps to explain why science denial is easy to generate and hard to slay. Today we live in a world where science denial, about everything from climate change to COVID-19, is rampant, informed by fallacies of all kinds. John Cook of George Mason University has, for example, undertaken an analysis of the logical fallacies and distortions tied to climate change denial, which include jumping to conclusions, cherry-picking data, raising impossible expectations, relying on fake experts, encouraging conspiracy theories and questioning the motivation of scientists. But there is a meta-fallacy—an über-fallacy if you will—that motivates these other, specific fallacies. It also explains why so many of the same people who reject the scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change also question the evidence related to COVID-19.
Given how common it is, it is remarkable that philosophers have failed to give it a formal name. But I think we can view it as a variety of what sociologists call implicatory denial. I interpret implicatory denial as taking this form: If P, then Q. But I don't like Q! Therefore, P must be wrong. This is the logic (or illogic) that underlies most science rejection.
Climate change: I reject the suggestion that the “magic of the market” has failed and that we need government intervention to remedy the market failure. Evolutionary theory: I am offended by the suggestion that life is random and meaningless and that there is no God. COVID-19: I resent staying home, losing income or being told by the government what do to.
In many cases, these objections are based on misunderstandings; evolutionary theory does not prove the nonexistence of God. In others, the implications are real enough. Climate change is a market failure, which will take government action to address. And absent a system for widespread testing and contact tracing, there was no known way to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the U.S. without the majority of us staying home. COVID-19 has shown how dangerous the fallacy of implicatory denial is. When we reject evidence because we do not like what it implies, we put ourselves at risk.
The U.S. could have acted more quickly to contain COVID-19. If we had, we would have saved both lives and jobs. But facts have an inconvenient habit of getting in the way of our desires. Sooner or later, denial crashes on the rocks of reality. The only question is whether it crashes before or after we get out of the way.
JOIN THE CONVERSATION ONLINE
Visit Scientific American on Facebook and Twitter or send a letter to the editor: editors@sciam.com


scientificamerican--2020-08-23--Another Misguided 'War' on Obesity

Another Misguided 'War' on Obesity

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently unveiled a “ Better Health ” campaign to combat obesity .
The announcement was prompted by Johnson ’ s bout with COVID-19 , which included a stint in intensive care in April .
Johnson is convinced that his reported Body Mass Index of 36 ( 30 is considered obese ) was responsible for the severity of his infection and is now on a mission to slim down the United Kingdom .
Johnson ’ s proposed interventions include banning junk food advertising before 9 P.M. to reduce the likelihood that children would be exposed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unhealthy snacks at entrances and checkouts , barring “ buy one get one free ” promotions on unhealthy foods , and requiring restaurants with over 250 employees to post calorie counts .
Other measures include encouraging doctors to prescribe cycling ( Johnson ’ s favored mode of transportation ) and facilitating access to weight-loss programs .
Critics of Johnson ’ s anti-obesity measures rightly charge that they are incomplete because they focus on personal responsibility rather than attacking the root causes of obesity—poverty and inequality .
Others have pointed out in the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effects on consumer behavior .
As a researcher and educator on the history and politics of obesity , I would also caution that Johnson and lawmakers from other countries who might follow in his footsteps should tread carefully .
Weight is a delicate issue , and mishandling “ wars ” on fat or obesity could impair , rather than improve , the physical and mental health of people with obesity .
This is not to say we should ignore links between obesity and COVID-19 .
There is mounting evidence that , obesity is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases of COVID-19 , possibly second only to age .
Studies of populations in China , Italy , the United States , France and Britain have shown that people with obesity may double their risk of being hospitalized or dying from COVID-19 , and that relationships between weight and COVID-19 are particularly pronounced among younger people and men .
of American adults are classified as obese .
There are a number of explanations as to why obesity can aggravate COVID-19 infections .
Scientists have found that COVID-19 often enters the body through an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with fat tissue have more ACE2 receptors and are therefore more susceptible to infection and higher viral loads .
Once infected with COVID-19 , some doctors have proposed that because fat tissue compresses the diaphragm and lungs , those with obesity experience greater difficulty breathing .
Another popular theory is that obesity may interfere with the proper functioning of immune cells and trigger an excessive immune response called a “ cytokine storm , ” resulting in potentially life-threatening inflammation and organ failure .
Some researchers have also suggested that irregular levels of hormones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and weight-regulating leptin , compromise immune responses to the virus .
As researchers continue to investigate links between obesity and COVID-19 , countries and public health organizations would be well advised to devote renewed attention to obesity .
In doing so , public health initiatives must learn from the mistakes of previous campaigns that stigmatized people with obesity as lazy , weak-willed and gluttons for junk food .
In 2012 , both Children 's Healthcare of Atlanta ( Georgia largest pediatric health care system ) and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justly characterized as fat shaming .
One Georgia poster featured four overweight children , with captions such as , “ Big bones didn ’ t make me this way .
Big meals did.
” Meanwhile , the Minnesota ads targeted parents .
One of its commercials featured a large man at a fast food outlet carrying a tray of burgers , hot dogs , fries , onion rings and sugary beverages .
As the man blithely walked toward his booth , he overheard his overweight son in competition with another boy over whose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suddenly felt ashamed .
I fear that these types of misguided ads and anti-obesity campaigns might resurface in the COVID-19 era , and that the pandemic will provide added ammunition to the notion that people with obesity are social and medical scourges .
Overweight children may be subjected to more bullying by peers if there are internet ads , commercials , posters and billboards stigmatizing people with obesity and their alleged diet and exercise habits .
Among adults , anonymous commentators of news stories about COVID-19 are already posting that people ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lifestyle habits , ” a claim reminiscent of the 1980s and early 1990s when anti-gay voices maintained that people died of AIDS because of the “ homosexual lifestyle.
” Furthermore , stigmatizing people for their weight would be inimical to the current reckoning with racial injustice , as African American women and Latino children are the most disproportionately affected by obesity in the United States .
To those who insist that blunt messaging is necessary to underscore the gravity of obesity just as sensationalistic anti-tobacco ads were needed to drive home the dangers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shown that not only is stigma ineffective , it can induce people with obesity to gain rather than shed , pounds .
Studies have found that both children and adults subjected to weight-based bullying or discrimination are more likely to seek solace in binge-eating , to develop eating disorders and to be discouraged from exercise due to anxieties about their bodies being on display .
Stigmatizing people for their weight could also impair mental health and create added stress , which could result in elevated levels of the stress hormone cortisol and increased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weight .
To avoid these consequences , campaigns to reduce obesity should focus on the positive aspects of maintaining healthy diet and exercise habits .
And because lower-income Americans and racial minorities are more likely to live in neighborhoods with comparatively fewer supermarkets and green spaces , public policy interventions should also ensure access to affordable healthy foods and spaces that facilitate exercise and recreation .
Such interventions align with the consensus among obesity experts that weight is the function of the interaction between genes and the environment .
Finally , it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ educational component in which the public and even health care providers are informed about the effects of weight bias .
Rebecca M. Puhl and Chelsea A. Heuer , leaders in this area of research , point to studies revealing that health professionals sometimes regard patients with obesity as “ lazy , lacking in self-discipline , dishonest , unintelligent , annoying , and noncompliant with treatment , ” and that medical appointments with heavier patients are shorter than those with thinner patients .
Patients with obesity perceive these slights , reporting that health care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ erroneously assume that their weight is responsible for all their ailments , and condescend to them about losing weight .
Hospital gowns , examination tables and medical equipment that are not designed for larger bodies exacerbate the embarrassment and indignities they experience .
As a result , patients with obesity may forgo subsequent medical care , including lifesaving cancer screenings .
On the surface , at least , Boris Johnson seems to have come to appreciate the importance of approaching obesity with more compassion .
In 2004 , he wrote a newspaper column @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s All Your Own Fat Fault.
” Now , he reassures the British public that his anti-obesity program is not meant to be “ excessively bossy or nannying , ” adding : “ We want this one to be really sympathetic to people , to understand the difficulties that people face with their weight , and just to be helpful .
”

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently unveiled a “Better Health” campaign to combat obesity. The announcement was prompted by Johnson’s bout with COVID-19, which included a stint in intensive care in April. Johnson is convinced that his reported Body Mass Index of 36 (30 is considered obese) was responsible for the severity of his infection and is now on a mission to slim down the United Kingdom.
Johnson’s proposed interventions include banning junk food advertising before 9 P.M. to reduce the likelihood that children would be exposed to such ads, preventing stores from selling unhealthy snacks at entrances and checkouts, barring “buy one get one free” promotions on unhealthy foods, and requiring restaurants with over 250 employees to post calorie counts. Other measures include encouraging doctors to prescribe cycling (Johnson’s favored mode of transportation) and facilitating access to weight-loss programs.
Critics of Johnson’s anti-obesity measures rightly charge that they are incomplete because they focus on personal responsibility rather than attacking the root causes of obesity—poverty and inequality. Others have pointed out in the past that calorie counts in restaurants have negligible effects on consumer behavior.
As a researcher and educator on the history and politics of obesity, I would also caution that Johnson and lawmakers from other countries who might follow in his footsteps should tread carefully. Weight is a delicate issue, and mishandling “wars” on fat or obesity could impair, rather than improve, the physical and mental health of people with obesity.
This is not to say we should ignore links between obesity and COVID-19. There is mounting evidence that, obesity is the most significant risk factor in serious cases of COVID-19, possibly second only to age. Studies of populations in China, Italy, the United States, France and Britain have shown that people with obesity may double their risk of being hospitalized or dying from COVID-19, and that relationships between weight and COVID-19 are particularly pronounced among younger people and men.
Forty-two percent of American adults are classified as obese.
There are a number of explanations as to why obesity can aggravate COVID-19 infections. Scientists have found that COVID-19 often enters the body through an enzyme called ACE2, and that people with fat tissue have more ACE2 receptors and are therefore more susceptible to infection and higher viral loads.
Once infected with COVID-19, some doctors have proposed that because fat tissue compresses the diaphragm and lungs, those with obesity experience greater difficulty breathing. Another popular theory is that obesity may interfere with the proper functioning of immune cells and trigger an excessive immune response called a “cytokine storm,” resulting in potentially life-threatening inflammation and organ failure. Some researchers have also suggested that irregular levels of hormones associated with obesity, like glucose-regulating adiponectin and weight-regulating leptin, compromise immune responses to the virus.
As researchers continue to investigate links between obesity and COVID-19, countries and public health organizations would be well advised to devote renewed attention to obesity. In doing so, public health initiatives must learn from the mistakes of previous campaigns that stigmatized people with obesity as lazy, weak-willed and gluttons for junk food.
In 2012, both Children's Healthcare of Atlanta (Georgia largest pediatric health care system) and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota launched controversial ad campaigns that critics have justly characterized as fat shaming. One Georgia poster featured four overweight children, with captions such as, “Big bones didn’t make me this way. Big meals did.” Meanwhile, the Minnesota ads targeted parents. One of its commercials featured a large man at a fast food outlet carrying a tray of burgers, hot dogs, fries, onion rings and sugary beverages. As the man blithely walked toward his booth, he overheard his overweight son in competition with another boy over whose father could eat the most. He suddenly felt ashamed.
I fear that these types of misguided ads and anti-obesity campaigns might resurface in the COVID-19 era, and that the pandemic will provide added ammunition to the notion that people with obesity are social and medical scourges. Overweight children may be subjected to more bullying by peers if there are internet ads, commercials, posters and billboards stigmatizing people with obesity and their alleged diet and exercise habits.
Among adults, anonymous commentators of news stories about COVID-19 are already posting that people’s fates are the result of “poor lifestyle habits,” a claim reminiscent of the 1980s and early 1990s when anti-gay voices maintained that people died of AIDS because of the “homosexual lifestyle.” Furthermore, stigmatizing people for their weight would be inimical to the current reckoning with racial injustice, as African American women and Latino children are the most disproportionately affected by obesity in the United States.
To those who insist that blunt messaging is necessary to underscore the gravity of obesity just as sensationalistic anti-tobacco ads were needed to drive home the dangers of smoking, public health research has shown that not only is stigma ineffective, it can induce people with obesity to gain rather than shed, pounds.
Studies have found that both children and adults subjected to weight-based bullying or discrimination are more likely to seek solace in binge-eating, to develop eating disorders and to be discouraged from exercise due to anxieties about their bodies being on display. Stigmatizing people for their weight could also impair mental health and create added stress, which could result in elevated levels of the stress hormone cortisol and increased heart rate, blood pressure, and weight.
To avoid these consequences, campaigns to reduce obesity should focus on the positive aspects of maintaining healthy diet and exercise habits. And because lower-income Americans and racial minorities are more likely to live in neighborhoods with comparatively fewer supermarkets and green spaces, public policy interventions should also ensure access to affordable healthy foods and spaces that facilitate exercise and recreation. Such interventions align with the consensus among obesity experts that weight is the function of the interaction between genes and the environment.
Finally, it is imperative that anti-obesity initiatives also include an educational component in which the public and even health care providers are informed about the effects of weight bias. Rebecca M. Puhl and Chelsea A. Heuer, leaders in this area of research, point to studies revealing that health professionals sometimes regard patients with obesity as “lazy, lacking in self-discipline, dishonest, unintelligent, annoying, and noncompliant with treatment,” and that medical appointments with heavier patients are shorter than those with thinner patients.
Patients with obesity perceive these slights, reporting that health care providers do not take them seriously, erroneously assume that their weight is responsible for all their ailments, and condescend to them about losing weight. Hospital gowns, examination tables and medical equipment that are not designed for larger bodies exacerbate the embarrassment and indignities they experience. As a result, patients with obesity may forgo subsequent medical care, including lifesaving cancer screenings.
On the surface, at least, Boris Johnson seems to have come to appreciate the importance of approaching obesity with more compassion. In 2004, he wrote a newspaper column headlined “Face It: It’s All Your Own Fat Fault.” Now, he reassures the British public that his anti-obesity program is not meant to be “excessively bossy or nannying,” adding: “We want this one to be really sympathetic to people, to understand the difficulties that people face with their weight, and just to be helpful.”


scientificamerican--2020-08-23--Readers Respond to the April 2020 Issue

Readers Respond to the April 2020 Issue

In “ New View of the Milky Way , ” Mark J. Reid and Xing-Wu Zheng state that they “ find that the sun circles the Milky Way every 212 million years .
To put this in perspective , the last time our solar system was in this part of the Milky Way , dinosaurs roamed the planet.
” But because the rest of the stars in our galaxy are also moving in the same direction about the center , should n't we “ always ” be in the same place with respect to them ?
The spiral of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years—which means its outermost stars must be moving faster !
Since Isaac Newton , we have known that outer objects move more slowly .
How do you explain the persistent spiral ?
THE AUTHORS REPLY : Pankratz is conceptually right .
The analogy we gave was simply to put the orbital period into perspective .
To address his question in more detail : most stars orbit the Milky Way with a circular speed within about 10 percent of that of the sun .
Because the circumference of the sun 's galactic orbit is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ light-years , after one galactic orbit , a typical star would be about 5,000 parsecs ahead of , or behind , the sun .
So after a 212-million-year orbit , we would be in the company of totally different neighbors .
Dormann raises a question that puzzled astronomers long ago .
We now know that because of dark matter , which extends well beyond where most stars are , the outermost stars are actually orbiting at about the same speed as the sun .
That said , the orbital circumference is larger farther @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stars have longer orbital periods than those closer to it .
This arrangement could lead to spiral patterns winding tighter over time .
The answer to the “ winding problem ” is controversial , but it probably involves patterns rotating slower than the stars or patterns that are short-lived and re-form continuously .
Chethan Sathya 's observations on the challenges of both discrimination and harassment faced by women surgeons in “ Stand Up for Female Surgeons ” [ Forum ] are noteworthy .
Behavioral change is critical if we are to address workplace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of inequality to persist .
Now more than ever , the need for every physician in every health system to be fully engaged , valued and productive is obvious .
Patients around the world need all of us working at the top of our game and collaborating with one another to deliver the care that they require today .
More important , society needs the diverse views that each one of us brings to the urgent work of redesigning our system of health care delivery to adapt to our rapidly changing world .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to recruitment , retention and leadership participation is an essential starting point and that more can be done to improve well-being in the workplace for surgeons and their families .
But teamwork is integral to our business .
For generations , women surgeons have valued the same goals as men : delivering patient-centered care , experiencing the challenges and joys of operative surgery , and undertaking the lifelong pursuit of academic inquiry .
It 's time for all of us to work together to build a better health service where everyone 's contribution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Program in Surgery , Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland In “ Who 's Rational about Risk ?
” [ Observatory ] , Naomi Oreskes notes that white men and scientists are less concerned than others about the risks of technology .
Viewing the issue with an awareness of the pervasive racism and sexism in American society might help our understanding .
Because I check every box of privilege , I have been free to live less cautiously than friends who are not white or male or heterosexual .
Now it is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ common good , however , is to listen more carefully and hear others more fully .
Although it was not her principal purpose in the piece , Oreskes makes a very good case for openness in decision-making about risks in general .
What she does not do is to discuss the analytical methods used in risk assessment .
I spent much of my career as an economist for the British government .
One of the topics in which I had quite a lot of involvement was the economics of flood risk management ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FRM projects are routinely subject to cost-benefit analysis ( CBA ) , in which flood risks , and how they might be expected to change following the introduction of a project , are quantified .
Perhaps more important , the business cases for FRM projects are subject to judicial review and thereby to public scrutiny .
One notable component of this kind of appraisal is the determination of who benefits and who bears the costs and risks involved in a project .
In recent years a variant of CBA known as risk-benefit analysis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in cases where the assessment of risk is a key component .
Methodologically , it has much in common with CBA , although , as its name implies , the emphasis on risk assessment tends to be more pronounced .
Personally , I have always been a firm believer in the merits of openness in government .
I hope the methods I 've described indicate one way in which this can be achieved where risk assessment is a key analytical component in decision-making .
As a medical doctor , I thank you for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's Missing from Medical Training , ” by Erin Paquette and Angira Patel [ Forum , March ] .
To help improve our public 's health , I think we need more such articles published , read and understood by a greater number of people .
Good-quality health care does call for tackling health problems at their roots .
More providers must go “ upstream ” to advocate for improving fairness and equity in opportunities for better well-being through social determinants of health in all aspects of society .
Not doing so leaves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean society can not reach its full capacity to thrive .
“ Future Fossils , ” by Rachel Nuwer [ Advances ] , should have said that people and livestock make up 96 percent of all mammals ' biomass rather than 96 percent of all mammals .
Andrea Gawrylewski 's review of The Human Planet [ Recommended ] should have referred to the South Pole rather than the southern tip of Antarctica .
“ Landing on the Right Foot , ” by Leslie Nemo [ Advances , June ] , includes a map @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should have indicated that U.S. states shown in blue use the “ U.S .
survey foot ” and that those set in pink use the “ international foot .
”

STARS ON THE MOVE
In “New View of the Milky Way,” Mark J. Reid and Xing-Wu Zheng state that they “find that the sun circles the Milky Way every 212 million years. To put this in perspective, the last time our solar system was in this part of the Milky Way, dinosaurs roamed the planet.” But because the rest of the stars in our galaxy are also moving in the same direction about the center, shouldn't we “always” be in the same place with respect to them?
DANIEL PANKRATZ Huntington Beach, Calif.
The spiral of the Milky Way has persisted for billions of years—which means its outermost stars must be moving faster! Since Isaac Newton, we have known that outer objects move more slowly. How do you explain the persistent spiral?
MARK DORMANN Palm Coast, Fla.
THE AUTHORS REPLY: Pankratz is conceptually right. The analogy we gave was simply to put the orbital period into perspective. To address his question in more detail: most stars orbit the Milky Way with a circular speed within about 10 percent of that of the sun. Because the circumference of the sun's galactic orbit is about 50,000 parsecs, or nearly 170,000 light-years, after one galactic orbit, a typical star would be about 5,000 parsecs ahead of, or behind, the sun. So after a 212-million-year orbit, we would be in the company of totally different neighbors.
Dormann raises a question that puzzled astronomers long ago. We now know that because of dark matter, which extends well beyond where most stars are, the outermost stars are actually orbiting at about the same speed as the sun.
That said, the orbital circumference is larger farther from the center, so the outermost stars have longer orbital periods than those closer to it. This arrangement could lead to spiral patterns winding tighter over time. The answer to the “winding problem” is controversial, but it probably involves patterns rotating slower than the stars or patterns that are short-lived and re-form continuously.
WOMEN IN SURGERY
Chethan Sathya's observations on the challenges of both discrimination and harassment faced by women surgeons in “Stand Up for Female Surgeons” [Forum] are noteworthy. Behavioral change is critical if we are to address workplace cultures that allow gender and other forms of inequality to persist.
Now more than ever, the need for every physician in every health system to be fully engaged, valued and productive is obvious. Patients around the world need all of us working at the top of our game and collaborating with one another to deliver the care that they require today. More important, society needs the diverse views that each one of us brings to the urgent work of redesigning our system of health care delivery to adapt to our rapidly changing world.
Our experience shows that systematically addressing barriers to recruitment, retention and leadership participation is an essential starting point and that more can be done to improve well-being in the workplace for surgeons and their families. But teamwork is integral to our business. For generations, women surgeons have valued the same goals as men: delivering patient-centered care, experiencing the challenges and joys of operative surgery, and undertaking the lifelong pursuit of academic inquiry.
It's time for all of us to work together to build a better health service where everyone's contribution is valued.
DEBORAH MCNAMARA National Clinical Program in Surgery, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland
REDEFINING RISK
In “Who's Rational about Risk?” [Observatory], Naomi Oreskes notes that white men and scientists are less concerned than others about the risks of technology.
Viewing the issue with an awareness of the pervasive racism and sexism in American society might help our understanding. Because I check every box of privilege, I have been free to live less cautiously than friends who are not white or male or heterosexual. Now it is a deep-seated habit. My duty to the common good, however, is to listen more carefully and hear others more fully.
JIM EYCHANER Sacramento, Calif.
Although it was not her principal purpose in the piece, Oreskes makes a very good case for openness in decision-making about risks in general. What she does not do is to discuss the analytical methods used in risk assessment.
I spent much of my career as an economist for the British government. One of the topics in which I had quite a lot of involvement was the economics of flood risk management (FRM). In England, significant FRM projects are routinely subject to cost-benefit analysis (CBA), in which flood risks, and how they might be expected to change following the introduction of a project, are quantified. Perhaps more important, the business cases for FRM projects are subject to judicial review and thereby to public scrutiny.
One notable component of this kind of appraisal is the determination of who benefits and who bears the costs and risks involved in a project. In recent years a variant of CBA known as risk-benefit analysis (RBA) has evolved for use in cases where the assessment of risk is a key component. Methodologically, it has much in common with CBA, although, as its name implies, the emphasis on risk assessment tends to be more pronounced.
Personally, I have always been a firm believer in the merits of openness in government. I hope the methods I've described indicate one way in which this can be achieved where risk assessment is a key analytical component in decision-making.
JOHN CORKINDALE Surrey, England
SOCIETAL HEALTH
As a medical doctor, I thank you for publishing the excellent commentary on “What's Missing from Medical Training,” by Erin Paquette and Angira Patel [Forum, March]. To help improve our public's health, I think we need more such articles published, read and understood by a greater number of people. Good-quality health care does call for tackling health problems at their roots. More providers must go “upstream” to advocate for improving fairness and equity in opportunities for better well-being through social determinants of health in all aspects of society. Not doing so leaves medical interventions unfinished and communities frustrated—and will mean society cannot reach its full capacity to thrive.
ÁLVARO GARZA via e-mail
ERRATA
“Future Fossils,” by Rachel Nuwer [Advances], should have said that people and livestock make up 96 percent of all mammals' biomass rather than 96 percent of all mammals.
Andrea Gawrylewski's review of The Human Planet [Recommended] should have referred to the South Pole rather than the southern tip of Antarctica.
“Landing on the Right Foot,” by Leslie Nemo [Advances, June], includes a map illustration with an incorrect key. It should have indicated that U.S. states shown in blue use the “U.S. survey foot” and that those set in pink use the “international foot.”