Perimeter!

3 Replies

I’m moving in at Perimeter this week, so I don’t have time to write a long post. For those who aren’t familiar with it, the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics is an independent research institute, not affiliated with any university. Instead, it’s funded by a combination of government and private sources (for why private sources might fund theoretical physics, read my discussion here). Because it’s not a university they have budgets to do things like hire people to make the transition process easier, so everything has been really nice and well-organized.

The postdoc offices are really nice, with a view of the nearby park, shown below.

On the Perimeter…of Waterloo Park

Hexagon Functions II: Lost in (super)Space

2 Replies

My new paper went up last night.

It’s on a very similar topic to my last paper, actually. That paper dealt with a specific process involving six particles in my favorite theory, N=4 super Yang-Mills. Two particles collide, and after the metaphorical dust settles four particles emerge. That means six “total” particles, if you add the two in with the four out, for a “hexagon” of variables. To understand situations like that, my collaborators and I created “hexagon functions”, formulas that depended on the states of the six particles.

One thing I didn’t emphasize then was that that calculation only applied to one specific choice of particles, one in which all of the particles are Yang-Mills bosons, particles (like photons) created by the fundamental forces. There are lots of other particles in N=4 super Yang-Mills, though. What happens when they collide?

That question is answered by my new paper. Though it may sound surprising, all of the other particles can be taken into account with a single formula. In order to explain why, I have to tell you about something called superspace.

A while back I complained about a blog post by George Musser about the (2,0) theory. One of the things that irked me about that post was his attempt to explain superspace:

Supersymmetry is the idea that spacetime, in addition to its usual dimensions of space and time, has an entirely different type of dimension—a quantum dimension, whose coordinates are not ordinary real numbers but a whole new class of number that can be thought of as the square roots of zero.

This is actually a great way to think about superspace…if you’re already a physicist. If you’re not, it’s not very informative. Here’s a better way to think about it:

As I’ve talked about before, supersymmetry is a relationship between different types of particles. Two particles related by supersymmetry have the same mass, and the same charge. While they can be very different in other ways (specifically, having different spin), supersymmetric particles are described by many of the same equations as each-other. Rather than writing out those equations multiple times, it’s often nicer to write them all in a unified way, and that’s where superspace comes in.

At its simplest, superspace is just a trick used to write equations in a simpler way. Instead of writing down a different equation for each particle we write one equation with an extra variable, representing a “dimension” of supersymmetry. Traveling in that dimension takes you from particle to particle, in the same way that “turning” the theory (as I phrase it here) does, but it does it within the space of a single equation.

That, essentially, is the trick that we use. With four “superspace dimensions”, we can include the four supersymmetries of N=4 super Yang-Mills, showing how the formulas vary when you go beyond the equation from our first paper.

So far, you may be wondering why I’m calling superspace a “dimension”, when it probably sounds like more of a label. I’ve mentioned before that, just because something is a variable, doesn’t mean it counts as a real dimension.

The key difference is that superspace dimensions are related to regular dimensions in a precise way. In a sense, they’re the square roots of regular dimensions. (Though independently, as George Musser described, they’re the square roots of zero: go in the same direction twice in supersymmetry, and you get back where you’re started, going zero distance.) The coexistence of these two seemingly contradictory statements isn’t some sort of quantum mystery, it’s just a consequence of the fact that, mathematically, I’m saying two very different things. I just can’t think of a way to explain them differently without math.

Superspace isn’t a real place…but it can often be useful to think of it that way. In theories with supersymmetry, it can unify the world, putting disparate particles together into a single equation.

Stop! Impostor!

1 Reply

Ever felt like you don’t belong? Like you don’t deserve to be where you are, that you’re just faking competence you don’t really have?

If not, it may surprise you to learn that this is a very common feeling among successful young academics. It’s called impostor syndrome, and it happens to some very talented people.

It’s surprisingly easy to rationalize success as luck, to assume praise comes from people who don’t know the full story. In science, we’re surrounded by people who seem to come up with brilliant insights on a regular basis. We see others’ successes far more often than we see their failures, and often we forget that science is at its heart a process of throwing ideas against a wall until something sticks. Hyper-aware of our own failures, when we present ourselves as successful we can feel like we’re putting on a paper-thin disguise, constantly at risk that someone will see through it.

As paper-thin disguises go, I prefer the classics.

In my experience, theoretical physics is especially heavy on impostor syndrome, for a number of reasons.

First, there’s the fact that beginning grad students really don’t know all they need to. Theoretical physics requires a lot of specialized knowledge, and most grad students just have the bare bones basics of a physics undergrad degree. On the strength of those basics, you’re somehow supposed to convince a potential advisor, an established, successful scientist, that you’re worth paying attention to.

Throw in the fact that many people have a little more than the basics, whether from undergrad research projects or grad-level courses taken early, and you have a group where everyone is trying to seem more advanced than they are. There’s a very real element of fake it till you make it, of going to talks and picking up just enough of the lingo to bluff your way through a conversation.

And the thing is, even after you make it, you’ll probably still feel like you’re faking it.

As I’ve mentioned before, there’s an enormous amount of jury-rigging that goes into physics research. There are a huge number of side-disciplines that show up at one point or another, from numerical methods to programming to graphic design. We can’t hire a professional to handle these things, we have to learn them ourselves. As such, we become minor dabblers in a whole mess of different fields. Work on something enough and others will start looking to you for help. It won’t feel like you’re an expert, though, because you know in the back of your mind that the real experts know so much more.

In the end, the best approach I’ve found is simply to keep saying yes. Keep using what you know, going to talks and trying new things. The more you “pretend” to know what you’re doing, the more experience you’ll get, until you really do know what you’re doing. There’s always going to be more to learn, but chances are if you’re feeling impostor syndrome you’ve already learned a lot. Take others’ opinions of you at face value, and see just how far you can go.

“China” plans super collider

1 Reply

When I saw the headline, I was excited.

“China plans super collider” says Nature News.

There’s been a lot of worry about what may happen if the Large Hadron Collider finishes its run without discovering anything truly new. If that happens, finding new particles might require a much bigger machine…and since even that machine has no guarantee of finding anything at all, world governments may be understandably reluctant to fund it.

As such, several prominent people in the physics community have put their hopes on China. The country’s somewhat autocratic nature means that getting funding for a collider is a matter of convincing a few powerful people, not a whole fractious gaggle of legislators. It’s a cynical choice, but if it keeps the field alive so be it.

If China was planning a super collider, then, that would be great news!

Too bad it’s not.

Buried eight paragraphs in to Nature’s article we find the following:

The Chinese government is yet to agree on any funding, but growing economic confidence in the country has led its scientists to believe that the political climate is ripe, says Nick Walker, an accelerator physicist at DESY, Germany’s high-energy physics laboratory in Hamburg. Although some technical issues remain, such as keeping down the power demands of an energy-hungry ring, none are major, he adds.

The Chinese government is yet to agree on any funding. China, if by China you mean the Chinese government, is not planning a super collider.

So who is?

Someone must have drawn these diagrams, after all.

Reading the article, the most obvious answer is Beijing’s Institute of High Energy Physics (IHEP). While this is true, the article leaves out any mention of a more recently founded site, the Center for Future High Energy Physics (CFHEP).

This is a bit odd, given that CFHEP’s whole purpose is to compose a plan for the next generation of colliders, and persuade China’s government to implement it. They were founded, with heavy involvement from non-Chinese physicists including their director Nima Arkani-Hamed, with that express purpose in mind. And since several of the quotes in the article come from Yifang Wang, director of IHEP and member of the advisory board of CFHEP, it’s highly unlikely that this isn’t CFHEP’s plan.

So what’s going on here? On one level, it could be a problem on the journalists’ side. News editors love to rewrite headlines to be more misleading and click-bait-y, and claiming that China is definitely going to build a collider draws much more attention than pointing out the plans of a specialized think tank. I hope that it’s just something like that, and not the sort of casual racism that likes to think of China as a single united will. Similarly, I hope that the journalists involved just didn’t dig deep enough to hear about CFHEP, or left it out to simplify things, because there is a somewhat darker alternative.

CFHEP’s goal is to convince the Chinese government to build a collider, and what better way to do that than to present them with a fait accompli? If the public thinks that this is “China’s” plan, that wheels are already in motion, wouldn’t it benefit the Chinese government to play along? Throw in a few sweet words about the merits of international collaboration (a big part of the strategy of CFHEP is to bring international scientists to China to show the sort of community a collider could attract) and you’ve got a winning argument, or at least enough plausibility to get US and European funding agencies in a competitive mood.

This…is probably more cynical than what’s actually going on. For one, I don’t even know whether this sort of tactic would work.

Do these guys look like devious manipulators?

Indeed, it might just be a journalistic omission, part of a wider tendency of science journalists to focus on big projects and ignore the interesting part, the nitty-gritty things that people do to push them forward. It’s a shame, because people are what drive the news forward, and as long as science is viewed as something apart from real human beings people are going to continue to mistrust and misunderstand it.

Either way, one thing is clear. The public deserves to hear a lot more about CFHEP.

Welcome to the New Site!

4 Replies

Welcome to the newly improved 4gravitons.wordpress.com!

I’ll be keeping redirects up from the old blog at 4gravitonsandagradstudent.wordpress.com, so old links should still work. Those of you following on WordPress Reader, I think the blog should be properly transferred there as well.

In addition to the spiffy new graphics, the blog has a number of handy new features. I’ve added categories to all of the posts from the following list: (2, 0) Theory, Amateur Philosophy, Amplitudes Methods, Astrophysics/Cosmology, General QFT, Gravity, Life as a Physicist, Science Communication, String Theory, Yang-Mills, and Misc. There’s a menu in the sidebar that lets you pick a category and look at posts from only that category.

I’ve also added a variety of tags, many of which are listed in the tag cloud in the sidebar. Bigger tags indicate more content.

There’s a blogroll now, of blogs I think are worth reading, including a mix of established folks and interesting people I’ve run into.

I’ve put the guide to N=8 supergravity up in the menus at the top, along with a collection of my posts on physics careers, and some general quantum field theory posts that I reference a lot. Each is in a separate section under Handy Handbooks. The posts have been cleaned up a bit, so if you missed them the first time be sure to take a gander.

Finally, I’ve added a Contact page, in case you want to ask me questions that don’t make sense as comments.

Take some time to explore the new features! And welcome to the next phase in the trials and tribulations of four gravitons and a postdoc!

Feeling Perturbed?

2 Replies

You might think of physics as the science of certainties and exact statements: action and reaction, F=ma, and all that. However, most calculations in physics aren’t exact, they’re approximations. This is especially true today, but it’s been true almost since the dawn of physics. In particular, approximations are performed via a method known as perturbation theory.

Perturbation theory is a trick used to solve problems that, for one reason or another, are too difficult to solve all in one go. It works by solving a simpler problem, then perturbing that solution, adjusting it closer to the target.

To give an analogy: let’s say you want to find the area of a circle, but you only know how to draw straight lines. You could start by drawing a square: it’s easy to find the area, and you get close to the area of the circle. But you’re still a long ways away from the total you’re aiming for. So you add more straight lines, getting an octagon. Now it’s harder to find the area, but you’re closer to the full circle. You can keep adding lines, each step getting closer and closer.

And so on.

This, broadly speaking, is what’s going on when particle physicists talk about loops. The calculation with no loops (or “tree-level” result) is the easier problem to solve, omitting quantum effects. Each loop then is the next stage, more complicated but closer to the real total.

There are, as usual, holes in this analogy. One is that it leaves out an important aspect of perturbation theory, namely that it involves perturbing with a parameter. When that parameter is small, perturbation theory works, but as it gets larger the approximation gets worse and worse. In the case of particle physics, the parameter is the strength of the forces involves, with weaker forces (like the weak nuclear force, or electromagnetism) having better approximations than stronger forces (like the strong nuclear force). If you squint, this can still fit the analogy: different shapes might be harder to approximate than the circle, taking more sets of lines to get acceptably close.

Where the analogy fails completely, though, is when you start approaching infinity. Keep adding more lines, and you should be getting closer and closer to the circle each time. In quantum field theory, though, this frequently is not the case. As I’ve mentioned before, while lower loops keep getting closer to the true (and experimentally verified) results, going all the way out to infinite loops results not in the full circle, but in an infinite result instead. There’s an understanding of why this happens, but it does mean that perturbation theory can’t be thought of in the most intuitive way.

Almost every calculation in particle physics uses perturbation theory, which means almost always we are just approximating the real result, trying to draw a circle using straight lines. There are only a few theories where we can bypass this process and look at the full circle. These are known as integrable theories. N=4 super Yang-Mills may be among them, one of many reasons why studying it offers hope for a deeper understanding of particle physics.

N=8: That’s a Whole Lot of Symmetry

5 Replies

In two weeks, I’m planning an extensive overhaul of the blog. I’ll be switching from 4gravitons.wordpress.com to just 4gravitons.wordpress.com, since I’m no longer a grad student. Don’t worry, I’ll be forwarding traffic from the old address, so if you miss the changeover you’ll have plenty of time to readjust. I’ll also be changing the blog’s look a bit, and adding some new tools and sections, including my current project, a series on the theory N=8 supergravity. This is post will be the last in the N=8 supergravity series.

I’ve told you about how gravity can be thought of as interactions with spin 2 particles, called gravitons. I’ve talked about how adding supersymmetry gives you a whole new type of particle, a gravitino, one different from all of the other particles we’ve seen in nature. Add supersymmetry to gravity, and you get a type of theory called supergravity.

In this post I want to discuss a particularly interesting form of supergravity. It’s called N=8 supergravity, and it’s closely related to N=4 super Yang-Mills.

In my articles about N=4 super Yang-Mills, I talked about supersymmetry. Supersymmetry is a relationship between particles of spin X and particles of spin X-½, but it gets more complicated when N (the number of “directions” of supersymmetry) is greater than one.

I’d encourage you to read at least the two links in the above paragraph. The gist is that just like a symmetrical object can be turned in different directions and still remain the same, a supersymmetrical theory can be “turned” so that a particle with spin X becomes a particle of spin X-½ (a different type of particle), and the theory will remain the same. The higher the number N, the more different directions the theory can be “turned”.

N=4 was something I could depict in a picture. We started with a particle of spin 1, then could “turn” it in four different directions, each resulting in a different particle of spin ½. By combining two different “turns” we ended up with six distinct particles of spin 0. Miraculously, I could fit this all into one image.

N=8 is tougher. This time, we start with 1 particle of spin 2: the graviton, the particle that corresponds to the force of gravity. From there we can “turn” the theory in eight different directions, leading to 8 different gravitino particles with spin 3/2.

After that, things get more complicated. You can “turn” the theory twice to reach spin 1. Spin 1 particles correspond to Yang-Mills forces, the fundamental forces of nature (besides gravity). Photons are the spin 1 particles that correspond to Electromagnetism. The spin 1 particles here, connected as they are to gravity by supersymmetry, are typically called graviphotons. There are 28 distinct graviphotons in N=8 supergravity.

From the graviphotons, we can keep turning, getting to spin ½, where we find 56 new particles of the same “type” as electrons and quarks. On our fourth turn, we get to spin 0, the scalars, with 70 new particles. Turning further takes us back: from spin 0 to spin ½, spin ½ to spin 1, spin 1 to spin 3/2, and spin 3/2 to spin 2, back where we started after eight “turns”.

I’ve tried to depict this in the same way as N=4 super Yang-Mills, but there’s just no way to fit everything in. The best I can do is to take a slice through the space, letting certain particles overlap to give at best a general impression of what’s going on.

Graviton in black, gravitinos in grey, graviphotons in yellow, fermions in orange, scalars in red, and comprehensibility omitted entirely.

Graviton in black, gravitinos in grey, graviphotons in yellow, fermions in orange, scalars in red, making a firework of incomprehensible graphics. Incidentally, happy 4th of July to my American readers.

That picture doesn’t give you any intuition about the numbers. It doesn’t show you why there are 28 graviphotons, or 70 scalars. To explain that, it’s best to turn to another, hopefully more familiar picture, Pascal’s triangle.

Getting math class flashbacks yet?

Pascal’s triangle is a way of writing down how many distinct combinations you can make out of a list, and that’s really all that’s going on here. If you have four directions to “turn” and you pick one, you have four options, while picking two gives you six distinct choices. That’s just the 1-4-6-4-1 line on the triangle. If you go down to the eighth, you’ll spot the numbers from N=8 supergravity: 1 graviton, 8 gravitinos, 28 graviphotons, 56 fermions, and 70 scalars.

That’s a lot of particles. With that many particles, you might wonder if you could somehow fit the real world in there.

Actually, that isn’t such a naive thought. When N=8 supergravity was first discovered, people tried to fit the existing particles of nature inside it, hoping that it could explain them. Over the years though, it was realized that N=8 supergravity simply doesn’t provide enough tools to fully capture the particles of the standard model. Something more diverse, like string theory, would be needed.

That means that N=8 supergravity, like many of the things theorists call theories, does not describe the real world. Instead, it’s interesting for a different reason.

You’ve probably heard that gravity and quantum mechanics are incompatible. That’s not exactly true: you can write down a quantum theory of gravity about as easily as you can write down a quantum theory of anything else. The problem is that most such theories have divergences, infinite results that shouldn’t be infinite. Dealing with those results involves a process called renormalization, which papers over the infinities but reduces our ability to make predictions. For gravity theories, this process has to be performed an infinite number of times, resulting in an infinite loss of predictability. So while you can certainly write down a theory of quantum gravity, you can’t predict anything with it.

String theory is different. It doesn’t have the same sorts of infinite results, doesn’t require renormalization. That, really, is it’s purpose, it’s biggest virtue: everything else is a side benefit.

N=4 super Yang-Mills isn’t a theory of gravity at all, but it does have that same neat trait: you never get this sort of infinite results, so you never need to give up predictive power.

What’s so cool about N=8 supergravity is that it just might be in the same category. By all rights, it shouldn’t be…but loop after loop its divergences seem to be behaving much like N=4 super Yang-Mills. (For those new to this blog, loops are a measure of how complex a calculation is in particle physics. Most practical calculations only involve one or two loops, while four loops represents possibly the most precise test ever performed by science.)

Now, two predictions are at the fore. One suggests that this magic behavior will be broken at the terrifyingly complex level of seven loops. The other proposes that the magic will continue, and N=8 supergravity will never see a divergence. The only way for certain is to do the calculation, look at four gravitons at seven loops and see what happens.

If N=8 supergravity really doesn’t diverge, then the biggest “point” of string theory isn’t unique anymore. If you don’t need all the bells and whistles of string theory to get an acceptable quantum theory of gravity, then maybe there’s a better way to think about the problem of quantum gravity in general. Even if N=8 supergravity doesn’t describe the real world, there may be other ways forward, other ways to handle the problem of divergences. If someone can manage that calculation (not as impossible as it sounds nowadays, but still very very hard) then we might see something really truly new.

(Super)gravity: Meet the Gravitino

6 Replies

I’m putting together a series of posts about N=8 supergravity, with the goal of creating a guide much like I have for N=4 super Yang-Mills and the (2,0) theory.

N=8 supergravity is what happens when you add the maximum amount of supersymmetry to a theory of gravity. I’m going to strongly recommend that you read both of those posts before reading this one, as there are a number of important concepts there: the idea that different types of particles are categorized by a number called spin, the idea that supersymmetry is a relationship between particles with spin X and particles with spin X-½, and the idea that gravity can be thought of equally as a bending of space and time or as a particle with spin 2, called a graviton.

Knowing all that, if you add supersymmetry to gravity, you’d relate a spin 2 particle (the graviton) to a spin 3/2 particle (for 2-½).

What is a spin 3/2 particle?

Spin 0 particles correspond to a single number, like a temperature, that can vary over space. The Higgs boson is the one example of a spin 0 particle that we know of in the real world. Spin ½ covers electrons, protons, and almost all of the particles that make up ordinary matter, while spin 1 covers Yang-Mills forces. That covers the entire Standard Model, all of the particles scientists have seen in the real world. So what could a spin 3/2 particle possibly be?

We can at least guess at what it would be called. Whatever this spin 3/2 particle is, it’s the supersymmetric partner of the graviton. For somewhat stupid reasons, that means its name is determined by taking “graviton” and adding “-ino” to the end, to get gravitino.

But that still doesn’t answer the question: What is a gravitino?

Here’s the quick answer: A gravitino is a spin 1 particle combined with a spin ½ particle.

What sort of combination am I talking about? Not the one you might think. A gravitino is a fundamental particle, it is not made up of other particles.

NOT like this.

So in what sense is it a combination?

A handy way for physicists to think about particles is as manifestations of an underlying field. The field is stronger or weaker in different places, and when the field is “on”, a particle is present. For example, the electron field covers all of space, but only where that electron field is greater than zero do actual electrons show up.

I’ve said that a scalar field is simple to understand because it’s just a number, like a temperature, that takes different values in different places. The other types of fields are like this too, but instead of one number there’s generally a more complicated set of numbers needed to define them. Yang-Mills fields, with spin 1, are forces, with a direction and a strength. This is why they’re often called vector fields. Spin ½ particles have a set of numbers that characterizes them as well. It’s called a spinor, and unfortunately it’s not something I can give you an intuitive definition for. Just be aware that, like vectors, it involves a series of numbers that specify how the field behaves at each point.

It’s a bit like a computer game. The world is full of objects, and different objects have different stats. A weapon might have damage and speed, while a quest-giver would have information about what quests they give. Since everything is just code, though, you can combine the two, and all you have to do is put both types of stats on the same object.

Like this.

For quantum fields, the “stats” are the numbers I mentioned earlier: a single number for scalars, direction and strength for vectors, and the spinor information for spinors. So if you want to combine two of them, say spin 1 and spin ½, you just need a field that has both sets of “stats”.

That’s the gravitino. The gravitino has vector “stats” from the spin 1 part, and spinor “stats” from the spin ½ part. It’s a combination of two types of fundamental particles, to create one that nobody has seen before.

That doesn’t mean nobody will ever see one, though. Gravitinos could well exist in our world, they’re actually a potential (if problematic) candidate for dark matter.

But much like supersymmetry in general, while gravitinos may exist, N=8 of them certainly don’t. N=8 is a whole lot of supersymmetry…but that’s a topic for another post. Stay tuned for the next post in the series!

Made of Energy, or Made of Nonsense?

3 Replies

I did a few small modifications to the blog settings this week. Comments now support Markdown, reply-chains in the comments can go longer, and there are a few more sharing buttons on the posts. I’m gearing up to do a more major revamp of the blog in July for when the name changes over from 4 gravitons and a grad student to just 4 gravitons.

io9 did an article recently on scientific ideas that scientists wish the public would stop misusing. They’ve got a lot of good ones (Proof, Quantum, Organic), but they somehow managed to miss one of the big ones: Energy. Matt Strassler has a nice, precise article on this particular misconception, but nonetheless I think it’s high time I wrote my own.

There’s a whole host of misconceptions regarding energy. Some of them are simple misuses of language, like zero-calorie energy drinks:

Energy can be measured in several different units. You can use Joules, or electron-Volts, or dynes…or calories. Calories are a measure of energy, so zero calories quite literally means zero energy.

Now, that’s not to say the makers of zero calorie energy drinks are lying. They’re just using a different meaning of energy from the scientific one. Their drinks give you vim and vigor, the get-up-and-go required to make money playing computer games. For most of the public, that “get-up-and-go” is called energy, even if scientifically it’s not.

That’s not really a misconception, more of an amusing use of language. This next one though really makes my blood boil.

Raise your hand if you’ve seen a Sci-Fi movie or TV show where some creature is described as being made of “pure energy”. Whether they’re peaceful, ultra-advanced ascended beings, or genocidal maniacs from another dimension, the concept of creatures made of “pure energy” shows up again and again and again.

Even if you aren’t the type to take Sci-Fi technobabble seriously, you’ve probably heard that matter and antimatter annihilate to form energy, or that photons are made out of energy. These sound more reasonable, but they rest on the same fundamental misconception:

Nothing is “made out of energy”.

Rather,

Energy is a property that things have.

Energy isn’t a substance, it isn’t a fluid, it isn’t some kind of nebulous stuff you can make into an indestructible alien body. Things have energy, but nothing is energy.

What about light, then? And what happens when antimatter collides with matter?

Light, just like anything else, has energy. The difference between light and most other things is that light also does not have mass.

In everyday life, we like to think of mass as some sort of basic “stuff”. If things are “made out of mass” or “made out of matter”, and something like light doesn’t have mass, then it must be made out of some other “stuff”, right?

The thing is, mass isn’t really “stuff” any more than energy is. Just like energy, mass is a property that things have. In fact, as I’ve talked about some before, mass is really just a type of energy. Specifically, mass is the energy something has when left alone and at rest. That’s the meaning of Einstein’s famous equation, E equals m c squared: it tells you how to take a known mass and calculate the rest energy that it implies.

Lots of hype for a unit conversion formula, huh?

In the case of light, all of its energy can be thought of in terms of its (light-speed) motion, so it has no mass. That might tempt you to think of it as being “made of energy”, but really, you and light are not so different.

You are made of atoms, and atoms are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Let’s consider a proton. A proton’s mass, expressed in the esoteric units physicists favor, is 938 Mega-electron-Volts. That’s how much energy a proton has alone and and rest. A proton is made of three quarks, so you’d think that they would contribute most of its mass. In reality, though, the quarks in protons have masses of only a few Mega-electron-Volts. Most of a proton’s mass doesn’t come from the mass of the quarks.

Quarks interact with each other via the strong nuclear force, the strongest fundamental force in existence. That interaction has a lot of energy, and when viewed from a distance that energy contributes almost all of the proton’s mass. So if light is “made of energy”, so are you.

So why do people say that matter and anti-matter annihilate to make energy?

A matter particle and its anti-matter partner are opposite in a lot of ways. In particular, they have opposite charges: not just electric charge, but other types of charge too.

Charge must be conserved, so if a particle collides with its anti-particle the result has a total charge of zero, as the opposite charges of the two cancel each other out. Light has zero charge, so it’s one of the most common results of a matter-antimatter collision. When people say that matter and antimatter produce “pure energy”, they really just mean that they produce light.

So next time someone says something is “made of energy”, be wary. Chances are, they aren’t talking about something fully scientific.

Does Science have Fads?

8 Replies

97% of climate scientists agree that global warming exists, and is most probably human-caused. On a more controversial note, string theorists vastly outnumber adherents of other approaches to quantum gravity, such as Loop Quantum Gravity.

As many who disagree with climate change or string theory would argue, the majority is not always right. Science should be concerned with truth, not merely with popularity. After all, what if scientists are merely taking part in a fad? What makes climate change any more objectively true than pet rocks?

Apparently this wikipedia’s best example of a fad.

People are susceptible to fads, after all. A style of music becomes popular, and everyone’s listening to the same sounds. A style of clothing, and everything’s wearing the same thing. So if an idea in science became popular, everyone might…write the same papers?

That right there is the problem. Scientists only succeed by creating meaningfully original work. If we don’t discover something new, we can’t publish, and as the old saying goes it’s publish or perish out there. Even if social pressure gets us working on something, if we’re going to get any actual work done there has to be enough there, at least, for us to do something different, something no-one has done before.

This doesn’t mean scientists can’t be influenced by popularity, but it means that that influence is limited by the requirements of doing meaningful, original work. In the case of climate change, climate scientists investigate the topic with so many different approaches and look at so many different areas of impact (for example, did you know rising CO2 levels make the ocean acidic?) that the whole field simply wouldn’t function if climate change wasn’t real: there’d be a contradiction, and most of the myriad projects involving it simply wouldn’t work. As I’ve talked about before, science is an interlocking system, and it’s hard to doubt one part without being forced to doubt everything else.

What about string theory? Here, the situation is a little different. There aren’t experiments testing string theory, so whether or not string theory describes the real world won’t have much effect on whether people can write string theory papers.

The existence of so many string theory papers does say something, though. The up-side of not involving experiments is that you can’t go and test something slightly different and write a paper about it. In order to be original, you really need to calculate something that nobody expected you to calculate, or notice a trend nobody expected to exist. The fact that there are so many more string theorists than loop quantum gravity theorists is in part because there are so many more interesting string theory projects than interesting loop quantum gravity projects.

In string theory, projects tend to be interesting because they unveil some new aspect of quantum field theory, the class of theories that explain the behavior of subatomic particles. Given how hard quantum field theory is, any insight is valuable, and in my experience these sorts of insights are what most string theorists are after. So while string theory’s popularity says little about whether it describes the real world, it says a lot about its ability to say interesting things about quantum field theory. And since quantum field theories do describe the real world, string theory’s continued popularity is also evidence that it continues to be useful.

Climate change and string theory aren’t fads, not exactly. They’re popular, not simply because they’re popular, but because they make important contributions and valuable to science. And as long as science continues to reward original work, that’s not about to change.