It has Many Shiny Buttons

Christmas has arrived early in northern Florida.

Last month I started brushing up on complex analysis, which is an esoteric form of calculus based on complex numbers. For those who don’t know, a complex number is a combination of a real number and an imaginary number. An imaginary number is a multiple of i, which is the square root of -1. The word “imaginary” got attached to the class by Rene Descartes, who is said to have thought imaginary numbers were useless. Imaginary numbers are used in physics to calculate results that can be observed in the real world, so “imaginary” is, maybe, not the best word to use to describe them.

I also started browsing through a new mechanics book: Introduction to Classical Mechanics: With Problems and Solutions by David Morin. People on the web wrote very highly of the book, and I could not resist taking a look at it. I’m always trying to find time to recapture the knowledge I lost after college, and most physics books are useful only as instruments of torture, so it’s good to find anything that can actually be understood.

While I was poking through problems in complex analysis and mechanics, I found to my horror that I had to deal with…I hate to write the filthy word…numerals. I mean what most people call “numbers.” Things like 5, 354, and 42. Nasty little things. To a physicist, being forced to deal with numerals is insulting. I can only imagine how offended a mathematician would be. It would be like asking him to do a calculation that isn’t totally useless.

I could not restrict myself to clean, shiny, odorless variables. I had to find arcsines, resultant forces, and so on, so I needed a calculator.

I already had a TI calculator of recent vintage, plus a Hewlett-Packard 35S I got a couple of years back, plus my ancient HP 32S. The 32S used to be an extension of my arm. I could more or less think calculations into it. My mind worked in reverse Polish notation. Unfortunately, the screen on the 32S pooped out and could not be made to work well enough to bear. This is why I got the 35S and the TI.

Hewlett-Packard used to make great calculators. They cost hundreds of dollars, and HP liked to tell people you could run over them with cars without hurting them. The 35S was not like that. It had a cheap case and floppy buttons that rolled when I pushed them. On top of that, there was no manual. The booklet that came with the calculator said HP would mail me a manual for nothing if I called, but when I called, HP told me to drop dead. They simply decided not to honor their promise. I didn’t feel like using their PDF manual, which required printing out something like 500 pages, so I was disenchanted with the whole thing.

Also, and to be more honest, I can’t find the 35S. I’m sure it’s here somewhere. Or maybe I got mad at it and threw it out.

Hewlett-Packard was once a neat company that made all sorts of electronic equipment. They made power sources, frequency generators, bench meters, and lots of other things. Something happened to them. Now they make cheap junk that belongs in Wal-Mart.

I went to Ebay to look for a 32S in good condition. I discovered the 32S II. People seemed to like it better. Also, it had a “II” in the name, so obviously, it was superior. I found a good deal on one somebody had used very little, and I ordered it. It arrived yesterday. I just took it out of the envelope and disinfected it. It looks new.

Now I can relax again, until the screen on this one goes bad. I’m actually considering buying two more, taking the batteries out, storing them, and waiting for the days when I need them.

I learned complex analysis from a book by two men named Ruel Churchill and James “the Godfather of Complex Variables” Brown. It’s a standard, but it could be better. I still have it. I also have a differential equations book by a man named Raymond Redheffer. It’s fantastic. It reads almost as though a human being wrote it. I decided to see if Redheffer had written anything else, and that’s how I found out he had written a complex analysis text.

I looked at the book on Open Library, and sure enough, it was very good. I found myself a copy in “like-new” condition and ordered it. That was weeks ago. It still hasn’t arrived.

I ordered it from Abe Books, which is a good resource. I pestered the seller, and they told me they could not find a record of the shipment. They gave up and refunded my money. That was annoying, because similar copies were selling for $30 more. After a few days of wishful thinking, hoping the book would still make it, I ordered another one, and the replacement is supposedly brand new. We will see. Book sellers have a tendency to send scuffed-up review copies and call them new.

The main thing is that it has to be in good repair and free of notes and so forth. That’s what I’m hoping for.

Redheffer also wrote a book on math for physicists. I found a copy selling really cheap, so I ordered it. Haven’t seen it yet.

I tried to replace one of my reference books a few weeks back. It’s called Mathematical Methods for Physicists, or, as physicists call it, “Mathews and Walker.” It’s a very popular book, so, of course, the publisher refuses to print it any more, and they have not licensed it to Dover Books, which prints paperback copies of old technical books major publishers are tired of. My copy is basically in excellent condition, but ants ate part of the spine, and it bothers me.

Do I use the book? Of course not. I just hate seeing my old STEM stuff destroyed, and I do plan to use it in the future.

I found a “new” “hardback” copy online for an unbelievable price, so I ordered it. I received a horrible, mashed-up paperback which was probably printed for the Indian market. I had to send it back, and then the seller didn’t refund my money. I had to sic Amazon on him. He had the gall to charge nearly $90 for that piece of junk.

I’m now considering buying book-repair tape and doing a fancy repair job. I’m sure Youtube University can help me.

It occurred to me that I was running into what appeared to be supernatural resistance in my STEM pursuits, so I asked God about it, and I believe he said the problem was coming from Satan, not him. I started using my supernatural tools to overcome it.

At first, I was thinking maybe God wanted me to leave STEM things alone. Scientists tend to take a dim view of Christianity. The folks at CERN made a comedy video (I assume it was comedy) showing robed figures sacrificing a woman at their headquarters, which shows that scientists are aware of the tension between Christians and scientists.

I thought maybe God wanted me to forget all about that part of my life. It appears that this is not the case, however.

The CERN video was filmed before a statue of Shiva, a form of the Hindu “god” Vishnu. In the Bhagavad Gita, Vishnu becomes Shiva in order to impress someone. Robert Oppenheimer quoted this book while reminiscing about the first atom bomb blast. In the book, Shiva says, “Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.”

CERN’s people say the video was a prank, and they also say CERN is full of artwork. They say the Shiva statue is just one of many works. Naturally, one has to ask: how many statues of Jesus and Moses are there at CERN? How many crosses are there?

Here is the video. Lots of profanity in the soundtrack.

The best evidence that this is a fake video is the presence of the woman who is offered as a sacrifice. How would a group of physicists manage to find a woman? They’re usually at home studying, watching science fiction and anime, or reading books like The Modern Physicist’s Guide to Avoiding Eye Contact.

Today I read that Paul Dirac hated religion. He was a towering figure in quantum mechanics. My alma mater, the University of Miami, almost snagged him for their theoretical physics group. I remember a story one of my profs told. Dirac was on campus, and my professor took him a copy of Dirac’s book. He wanted an autograph. Dirac apparently collected stamps, and he had some fresh acquisitions with him. He stuck a couple in the front of the book along with his signature.

Funny; I can’t recall which professor told me that.

Here is what Dirac said:

I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can’t for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.

My suggestion: learn to use paragraphs.

It’s remarkable that Dirac thought rich and powerful people were the force behind the perpetuation of Christianity. Powerful people who agreed with Dirac politically did their best to destroy Christianity during the last century, and they are still at it. The communists have done everything they could to get rid of Christianity, and they certainly wanted “quiet people.” They liked quiet people so much they shot loud ones and pushed their bodies into mass graves. The gulags and Castro’s prisons were built for people who were not quiet.

Before slavery was abolished, many slave owners refused to let their slaves own Bibles or go to church. Dirac would have found that confusing.

Dirac’s positions are another illustration of a simple fact: top STEM people tend to know very little about the way human beings work. In their understanding of human nature, they are often like slow children, no matter how well they can do math. It’s a shame ordinary people think physicists have anything intelligent to say about politics and religion. You might as well ask a chicken.

Dirac was famous for his social ineptitude. He married the wife of physicist Eugene Wigner, and he was once heard to introduce her as follows: “Allow me to present Wigner’s sister, who is now my wife.” When Werner Heisenberg told him dancing was fun as long as the girls were nice, Dirac said, “But, Heisenberg, how do you know beforehand that the girls are nice?”

This was not the guy to talk to about anything involving spirituality.

Niels Bohr supposedly thought Dirac was onto something, so, clearly, he was not a great source of spiritual wisdom, either.

Wolfgang Pauli, who was very funny, supposedly said this: “Well, our friend Dirac has got a religion and its guiding principle is ‘There is no God, and Paul Dirac is His prophet.'”

It makes sense that the best STEM thinkers would be inept about people, because top performance in their fields doesn’t just come from intelligence; it comes from a willingness to sacrifice everything but math and science. They don’t get where they are by working 40 hours per week and having normal lives, regardless of how bright they are. People in other fields work hard, too, but most fields involve a lot more human interaction and require more application of social intelligence. A mathematician can be successful while living in a dog kennel, naked, and refusing to speak except to the people who throw him his food.

Anyway, I have my calculator, and I assume my complex analysis book will get here soon, so I am happy.

MORE

I said something was resisting my efforts to work on STEM pursuits. That was on December 11. It is now December 13. Yesterday, I received a package from a seller who was supposed to send me a manual for the used calculator I bought. I opened the package, and it actually contained a spelling and handwriting pamphlet for elementary school students!

Maybe someone is trying to tell me something. Of course, no one on the Internet has seen my handwriting, so I don’t see what the problem is.

Still waiting for some other books I ordered. Will they make it, or will the forces of darkness send me more books for first-grade students? I almost hope so, because I could KILL first-grade math problems.

I received my copy of the solutions manual for Ruel Churchill’s complex analysis book, but this is a pretty unimportant part of my collection.