Monthly Archives: April 2013

A physicist by any other trade

2 Replies

Physicists have a tendency to stick their noses in other peoples’ work. We’ve conquered Wall Street (and maybe ruined it), studied communication networks and neural networks, and in a surprising number of cases turned from the study of death to the study of life. Pretty much everyone in physics knows someone who left physics to work on something more interesting, or better-funded, or just straight-up more lucrative. Occasionally, they even remember their roots.

What about the reverse, though? Where are the stories of people in other fields taking up physics?

Aside from a few very early-career examples, that just doesn’t happen. You might say that’s just because physics is hard, but that would be discounting the challenges present in other fields. A better point is that physics is hard, and old.

 Physics is arguably the oldest science, with only a few fields like mathematics and astronomy having claim to an older pedigree. A freshman physics student spends their first semester studying ideas that would have been recognizable three hundred years ago.

Of course, the same (and more) could be said about philosophy. The difference is that in physics, we teach ideas from three hundred years ago because we need them to teach ideas from two hundred years ago. And the ideas from two hundred years ago are only there so we can fill them in with information from a hundred years ago. The purpose of an education in physics, in a sense, is to catch students up with the last three hundred years of work in as concise a manner as possible.

Naturally, this leads to a lot of shortcuts, and over the years an enormous amount of notational cruft has built up around the field, to the point where nothing can be understood without understanding the last three hundred years. In a field where just getting students used to the built-up lingo takes an entire undergraduate education, it’s borderline impossible to just pick it up in the middle and expect to make progress.

Of course, this only explains why people who were trained in other fields don’t take up physics mid-career. What about physicists who go over to other fields? Do they ever come back?

I can’t think of any examples, but I can’t think of a good reason either. Maybe it’s hard to get back in to physics after you’ve been gone for a while. Maybe other fields are just so fun, or physics so miserable, no-one ever wants to come back. We shall never know.

There’s something about Symmetry…

3 Replies

Physicists talk a lot about symmetry. Listen to an article about string theory and you might get the idea that symmetry is some sort of mysterious, mystical principle of beauty, inexplicable to the common man or woman.

Well, if it was inexplicable, I wouldn’t be blogging about it, now would I?

Symmetry in physics is dead simple. At the same time, it’s a bit misleading.

When you think of symmetry, you probably think of objects: symmetric faces, symmetric snowflakes, symmetric sculptures. Symmetry in physics can be about objects, but it can also be about places: symmetry is the idea that if you do an experiment from a different point of view, you should get the same results. In a way, this is what makes all of physics possible: two people in two different parts of the world can do the same experiment, but because of symmetry they can compare results and agree on how the world works.

Of course, if that was all there was to symmetry then it would hardly have the mystical reputation it does. The exciting, beautiful, and above all useful thing about symmetry is that, whenever there is a symmetry, there is a conservation law.

A conservation law is a law of physics that states that some quantity is conserved, that is, cannot be created or destroyed, but merely changed from one form to another. Energy is the classic example: you can’t create energy out of nothing, but you can turn the potential energy of gravity on top of a hill into the kinetic energy of a rolling ball, or the chemical energy of coal into the electrical energy in your power lines.

The fact that every symmetry creates a conservation law is not obvious. Proving it in general and describing how it works required a major breakthrough in mathematics. It was worked out by Emmy Noether, one of the greatest minds of her time, which given that her time included Einstein says rather a lot. Noether struggled for most of her life with the male-dominated establishment of academia, and spent many years teaching unpaid and under the names of male faculty, forbidden from being a professor because of her gender.

Why must women always be banished to the Noether regions of physics?

Noether’s proof is remarkable, but if you’re not familiar with the mathematics it won’t mean much to you. If you want to get a feel for the connection between symmetries and conservation laws, you need to go back a bit further. For the best example, we need to go all the way back to the dawn of physics.

Christiaan Huygens was a contemporary of Isaac Newton, and like Noether he was arguably as smart as if not smarter than his more famous colleague. Huygens could be described as the first theoretical physicist. Long before Newton first wrote his three laws of motion, Huygens used thought experiments to prove deep facts about physics, and he did it using symmetry.

In one of Huygens’ thought experiments, two men face each other, one standing on a boat and the other on the bank of a river. The men grab onto each other’s hands, and dangle a ball on a string from each pair of hands. In this way, it is impossible to tell which man is moving each ball.

Stop hitting yourself!

From the man on the bank’s perspective, he moves the two balls together at the same speed, which happens to be the same speed as the river. The balls are the same size, so as far as he can see they should have the same speed afterwards as well.

On the other hand, the man in the boat thinks that he’s only moving one ball. Since the man on the bank is moving one of the balls along at the same speed as the river, from the man on the boat’s perspective that ball is just staying still, while the other ball is moving with twice the speed of the river. If the man on the bank sees the balls bounce off of each other at equal speed, then the man on the boat will see the moving ball stop, and the ball that was staying still start to move with the same speed as the original ball. From what he could see, a moving ball hit a ball at rest, and transferred its entire momentum to the new ball.

Using arguments like these, Huygens developed the idea of conservation of momentum, the idea of a number related to an object’s mass and speed that can never be created or destroyed, only transferred from one object to another. And he did it using symmetry. At heart, his arguments showed that momentum, the mysterious “quantity of motion”, was merely a natural consequence of the fact that two people can look at a situation in two different ways. And it is that fact, and the power that fact has to explain the world, that makes physicists so obsessed with symmetry.

Anthropic Reasoning, Multiverses, and Eternal Inflation (Part Two of Two)

Leave a reply

So suppose you want to argue that, contrary to appearances, the universe isn’t impossible, and you want to use anthropic reasoning to do it. Suppose further that you read my post last week, so you know what anthropic reasoning is. In case you haven’t, anthropic reasoning means recognizing that, while it may be unlikely that the location/planet/solar system/universe you’re in is a nice place for you to live, as long as there is at least one nice place to live you will almost certainly find yourself living there. Applying this to the universe as a whole requires there to be many additional universes, making up a multiverse, at least one of which is a nice place for human life.

Is there actually a multiverse, though? How would that even work?

One of the more plausible proposals for a multiverse is the concept of eternal inflation.

Eternal inflation is idea with many variants (such as chaotic inflation), and rather than give the details of any particular variant, I want to describe the setup in as broad strokes as possible.

The first thing to be aware of is that the universe is expanding, and has been since the Big Bang. Counter-intuitively, this doesn’t mean that the universe was once small, and is now bigger: in all likelihood, the universe was always infinite in size. Instead, it means that things began packed in close together, and have since moved further apart. While various forces (gravity, electromagnetism) hold things together on short scales, the wide open spaces between galaxies are constantly widening, spreading out the map of the universe.

You would expect this process to slow down over time. While it might have started with a burst of energy (aforementioned Big Bang), as the universe gets more and more spread out it should be running out of steam. The thing is, it’s not. The evidence (complicated enough that I’m not going to go into it now) shows that the universe actually sped up dramatically shortly after the Big Bang, and seems to be speeding up again now. This speeding up is called inflation.

So what could make the universe speed up? You might have heard of Einstein’s cosmological constant, a constant added to Einstein’s equations of general relativity that, while originally intended to make the universe stay in a steady state forever, can also be chosen so as to speed up the universe’s expansion. While that works mathematically, it’s not really an explanation, especially if it changes with time.

Enter scalar fields. A scalar is what happens when you let what looks like a constant of nature vary as a quantum field. Scalar fields can vary over space, and they can change over time, making them ideal candidates for explaining inflation. And as a quantum field, the scalar field behind inflation (often called the inflaton) should randomly fluctuate, giving rise to the occasional particle just like the Higgs (another scalar field) does.

Well, not just like the Higgs. See, the Higgs controls mass, and if the mass of some particles increases a bit in a tiny area, it’s weird, but it’s not going to spread. On the other hand, if space in some place is inflating faster than space in another place…

Suppose you have two empty blocks in the middle of intergalactic space, each a cube one foot on each side, with one inflating faster than the other. Twice as fast, let’s say, so that when one cube grows to two feet on a side, the other grows to four feet on a side. Then when the first cube is four feet on a side, the other will be sixteen. When the first has eight foot sides, the other’s will be sixty-four. And so forth. Even a small difference in expansion rates quickly leads to one region dominating the other. And if inflation stops slightly later in one region than in another, that can be a pretty dramatic difference too.

The end result is that if inflation were this sort of scalar field, the universe would just keep expanding forever, faster and faster. Only small pockets would slow down enough that anything could actually stick together. So while most of the universe would just tear itself apart forever, some of it, the parts that tear themselves apart slowly, can contain atoms and stars and well, life. A universe like that is one that is experiencing eternal inflation. It’s eternal because it doesn’t have a beginning or end: what looks to us like the Big Bang, the beginning of our universe, is really just the point at which our part of the universe started expanding slow enough that anything we recognize as matter could exist.

There’s no reason for us to be the only bubble that slowed down, though, and that’s where the multiverse aspect comes in. In eternal inflation there are lots and lots of slow regions, each one like a mini-universe in its own right. What’s more, each region can have totally different constants of nature.

To understand how that works, remember that each region has a different rate of inflation, and thus a different value for the inflaton scalar field. It turns out that many types of scalar fields like to interact with each other. If you recall my post on scalar fields (already linked, not gonna link it again), you’ll remember that for everything that looks like a constant of nature, chances are there’s a scalar field that controls it. So different values for inflation means different values for all of those scalar fields too, which means different physical constants. With so many (possibly infinitely many) regions with different physical constants, there’s bound to be one where we could live.

Now, before you get excited here, there are a few caveats. Well, a lot of caveats.

First, it’s all well and good if the multiverse can produce life, but what if it produces dramatically different life? What sort of life is eternal inflation most likely to produce, and what are the chances it would look at all like us? For that matter, how do you figure out the chances of anything in an infinite, eternally expanding universe? This last is a very difficult problem, and work on it is ongoing.

Beyond that, we don’t even know enough about inflation to know whether eternal inflation would happen or not. We’ve got a pretty good idea that inflation involves scalar fields, but how many and in what combination? We don’t know yet, and the evidence is still coming in. We’re right on the cutting edge of things now, and until we know more it’s tough to say for certain whether any of this is viable. Still, it’s fun to think about.

Anthropic Reasoning, Multiverses, and Eternal Inflation (Part One of Two)

Leave a reply

You and I are very very lucky. Human life is very delicate, and the conditions under which it can thrive are not in the majority. Going by random chance, neither of us should exist.

I am referring, of course, to the fact that the Earth’s surface is about 70 percent ocean. Just think how lucky you are not to have been born there: you would have drowned! Let alone if you were born beneath the Earth’s crust!

If you understand why the above is ridiculous, congratulations: you’ve just discovered anthropic reasoning.

There are some situations we find ourselves in because they are common. Most (all) of the Earth is in orbit around the Sun, so if you find yourself in orbit around the Sun you should hardly be surprised. Some situations, on the other hand, keep happening not because they are common in the universe in general, but because they are the part of the universe in which we can exist. Recognizing those situations is anthropic reasoning.

It’s not weird that you were born on land, even though land is rarer than water, because land, and not water, is where people live. As long as there was any land on the earth at all, you would expect people to be born on it (or on ships, I suppose) rather than on the ocean.

The same sort of reasoning explains why we evolved on Earth to begin with. There are eight planets in the solar system (yes, Pluto is not a planet, get over it), and only one of them is in the right place for life like us. We aren’t “lucky” that we ended up on Earth rather than another planet, nor is it something “unlikely” that needs to be explained: we’re on Earth because the universe is big enough that there happens to be a planet that has the right conditions for life, and Earth is that planet.

What anthropic reasoning has a harder time explaining (but what some people are working very hard to make it explain) is the question of why our whole universe is the way it is. Our universe is a pretty good place for life to evolve. Granted, that’s probably just a side effect of it being a good place for stars to evolve, but let’s put that aside for a second. Suppose the universe really is a particularly nice place for life, even improbably nice. Can anthropic reasoning explain that?

Probably. But it takes some work.

See, the difficulty is that in order for anthropic reasoning to work, you need to be certain that some place hospitable to life actually is likely to exist. Earthlike planets may be rare, but there are enough planets in the universe that some of them are bound to be like Earth. If universes like ours are rare, though, then how can there be enough universes to guarantee one like ours? How can there be more than one universe at all?

That’s why you need a multiverse.

A multiverse, in simple terms, is a collection of universes. If you object that a universe is, by definition, all that exists, and thus there can’t possibly be more than one, then you can use an alternate definition: a multiverse is a vast universe in which there are many smaller universe-like regions. These sub-universes don’t have much (or any) contact with eachother, and (in order for anthropic reasoning to work) must have different properties.

Does a multiverse exist, though? How would one work?

There are several possibilities, of varying degrees of plausibility. Some people have argued that quantum mechanics leads to many parallel universes, while others posit that each universe could be like a membrane in some higher dimensional space. The multiple universes could be separated in ordinary space, or even in time.

In the next post, I will discuss one of the more plausible (if still controversial) possibilities, called eternal inflation, in which new universes are continually birthed in a vast sea of exponentially expanding space. If you have no idea what the heck I meant by that, great! Tune in next time to find out!