Tag Archives: press

Breakthrough Prize 2026

Leave a reply

Because of last week’s “bonus info” post, I’m only now getting around to commenting on this year’s Breakthrough Prizes in Fundamental Physics. While I don’t comment on them every year, I know enough about several of this year’s winners that I figured a post would be helpful.

For those who haven’t heard of it, the Breakthrough Prizes are a bit like the Nobel, if it was created by a 21st century rich person instead of a 19th century one. They give out more money, and instead of an organization like the Swedish Academy of Sciences they pick winners via a committee of past winners. They’re more flexible in structure than the Nobel, with extra prizes for early-career researchers and a tendency to reward accomplishments that are either entirely theoretical or solid experimental work that doesn’t show a new discovery, both of which are things the Nobel Prize is structured to avoid. They’ve also shown willingness to reward large collaborations, rather than following the Nobel’s informal rule to only give the award to three people at a time.

This last was on display this year in their main award in physics this year, for the muon g-2 collaborations. The award is going to collaborations of scientists and engineers at three different particle colliders, for work done over a span of over fifty years to measure the magnetic properties of the muon. These measurements have shown a tantalizing discrepancy with predictions that inspired many to conjecture new physics. However, in the last few years it’s looked more and more like the discrepancy was due to an imprecise prediction, and better methods seem to be converging to the experimental value. At this point, smart money is that there is no disagreement with the Standard Model here, but as always in science there’s a chance some mystery remains.

The Breakthrough Prize also offered a special, out-of-schedule prize to David Gross. Already a Nobel laureate, Gross had a crucial role in our understanding of the force of quantum chromodynamics that binds protons and neutrons together. He was also a major founding figure in string theory, and since the Breakthrough Prize is more comfortable recognizing theoretical contributions they get to mention this as well. Gross is also known in the community for his personality, which tends to fill up any room he’s in. I can only imagine the conversations that led to Breakthrough’s decision to add a special prize for him this year.

Breakthrough is also adding a new recurring prize, the Vera Rubin New Frontiers Prize, honoring women who make important contributions to physics within two years of their PhD. The prize is a bit smaller than the exiting early-career New Horizons in Physics Prizes, presumably because it goes to even younger researchers. This year’s winner is from my old field, scattering amplitudes. Carolina Figueiredo is part of the latest evolution of the research program behind the amplituhedron. The new framework of “surfaceology” seems like a promising geometry-flavored way to understand particle physics calculations in more realistic theories, and unlike its predecessors may have some practical value eventually as well. Congrats Carolina!

Finally, the New Horizons in Physics Prizes are for impressive early-career researchers. I don’t know much about the first recipient, Benjamin Safdi, who works on searches for axions and axion-like particles, today’s most trendy dark matter candidate. I know a bit more about the work done by Clay Córdova, Thomas Dumitrescu, Shu-Heng Shao, and Yifan Wang, having met several of them in my physics career. They work on what are called generalized symmetries, concepts which go beyond the usual idea of how symmetry is supposed to work by involving more complicated tensors. I saw these crop up a fair bit in talks, but they were distant enough from my area that I never had a particularly clear grasp of what people were doing with them. I know even less about the work of the last three, Dillon Brout, J. Colin Hill, Mathew Madhavacheril, Maria Vincenzi, Daniel Scolnic, and W. L. Kimmy Wu, on cosmological measurements, but I was friends with Mathew in grad school and am impressed that he’s now working on cosmology given how little cosmology research there was at Stony Brook at the time.

Bonus Info for “Quantum ‘Jamming’ Explores the Truly Fundamental Principles of Nature”

4 Replies

I had a new piece in Quanta Magazine last week, about a hypothetical trick in theories beyond quantum mechanics called jamming.

Sometimes, I get science news stories from contacts. Sometimes I see an academic post something cool on X or Bluesky. But when the stories aren’t coming easy, I open up arXiv.org, click on “new”, and start browsing. And occasionally, I spot something cool.

That happened with jamming. I saw the concept mentioned in an abstract, the idea that someone could “jam” quantum entanglement from afar, like you would jam a radio signal. I hadn’t heard of it before. I wanted to know more. And after I talked to Quanta’s editors, they wanted to know more too.

Jamming is not possible under the rules of quantum mechanics we know. Instead, it’s something that could be possible in a kind of super-quantum mechanics, a theory even weirder than the famously weird theory we use today. In my piece for Quanta, I talked about where the idea of jamming comes from, and why it’s spurring discussion in recent years. In this post, I wanted to give some “bonus info” that didn’t fit into the piece.

One theme I didn’t have as much space to explore is causality.

Quantum mechanics famously seems to do weird things with cause and effect. In a double-slit experiment, photons pass one by one through one of two slits in a wall, headed to a photographic screen. No matter how slowly and carefully you send the photons, their distribution on the other end will show interference between the two possible paths, one through each slit, even though each photon only goes through one. It’s as if before hitting the screen, the photons are simultaneously traveling on every possible path, only to pick one in the moment the photon is detected.

Einstein was bothered by this. He imagined a photographic screen so large it would take light years to cross. How could detecting a photon on one side change the possibility of detecting a photon on the other side? That seemed, to him, to require signals traveling faster than light, which in turn would screw up cause and effect, as any way to send a signal faster than light can also, from another perspective, send a signal back in time.

The answer most physicists accept is that no signal can be sent in this way…at least, in the modern sense. Quantum outcomes are random, so while you could imagine that a measurement in one place changes the outcome in another place, your choice to measure has no effect on that distant outcome. You can’t intentionally send a message faster than light. We call that “no-signaling”, and it prevents the paradoxes of time travel.

Jamming obeys similar rules. A jammer (in the story in my article, a magician named Jim) can modify the entanglement between two distant particles, seemingly faster than light. But he can only do this in a way that involves randomness, so that the probabilities for measurement results for each individual particle stay the same. Instead, he can only modify how measurements between the two particles are related, their correlation. And he can only do this if the two particles can only be compared in a region that he can reach without traveling faster than light.

That’s enough to allow Jim to break the security of many quantum cryptography procedures. He can do this for example by mimicking entanglement: quantum cryptography often uses entanglement to verify that a message hasn’t been tampered with. If you can modify correlations from afar, you can make two particles appear to be entangled when actually they’re related by some other rules, which give you access to the secret that others are trying to hide.

Part of what’s still under discussion, is whether that kind of trick is compatible with causality. This depends a lot on how you think causality is supposed to work, and while the people I talked to are trying to get the story straight, they weren’t in agreement yet. In particular, Vilasini and Colbeck seemed to think that there was an important difference between the way that jamming bends causality and the way that ordinary quantum mechanics does, while Eckstein and Ramanathan weren’t so sure.

More broadly, Vilasini and Colbeck have a broader way of thinking about causality that I only barely touched on. Part of that is ways you can think of one event causing another even if no signal can be sent between them. Part of that is time loops, but of a limited kind: loops that can’t cause paradoxes, because they’re loops of causes, but not intentional signals. Vilasini and Colbeck have argued that jamming, if it existed, could be used to set up these kind of limited time loops, in a piece that was covered by New Scientist. It should be emphasized that these are really very limited time loops, for more reasons than one. They’re also limited to being in only one spatial dimension: that is, everyone in the loop has to be lined up in exactly a straight line. And I got the impression they also require everyone to activate their measurement or jamming devices instantly: with any small delay, the loop breaks.

I said even less about Mirjam Weilenmann’s critique, because there were bigger aspects that the researchers still disagreed on when I spoke with them. Weilenmann’s argument looks at what happens when there are multiple jammers, jamming different pairs of entangled particles. I got the impression from her that she felt she had found a contradiction in these examples, where jamming could only work if it broke its essential no-signaling rules. But Eckstein and Ramanathan seemed to think she was describing a scenario where one jammer could cause noise that would disrupt another jammer, “jamming the jammers” in a sense that didn’t cause any fundamental problems, just introduced jammer vs. jammer combat to make the story more interesting. I opted to not say much about this, since it was clear that things weren’t resolved yet. The researchers are still talking, and I look forward to hearing what they conclude when they reach agreement.

I also didn’t say much about tests in the real world. But that is something Eckstein and collaborators are actively exploring. They’re investigating experiments that could show deviations from quantum mechanics in a variety of contexts, from tabletops in university labs to particle colliders. The hope is that some of these strange ideas could actually be tested.

In general, the impression I got was that despite the seeds of this topic being laid thirty years ago, and reintroduced to the field ten years ago…the topic is heating up right now, in a way it hadn’t before. I’m expecting more jamming papers. If they’re cool enough, I may even cover some of them.

Trust Is a Tree

Leave a reply

Scientists trust what they think they can verify.

In principle, you can work your way through the proof of every mathematical theorem. With enough money and time, you could replicate every experiment. For every expert opinion, you could dig through the literature and find how it was justified.

And while a scientist can’t actually do that for every field, they might be able to for the ones they care about most. In your specialty, you probably can check the logic behind every claim. And you know that enough people try, that you can trust your colleagues’ work.

As a science journalist, most of the time, you can’t do those checks. You don’t even pretend you can. Instead, you build trust, like a tree.

You start with a grounding. A former scientist might trust their former colleagues, people they trusted, as a scientist, to do (and know) good work. A non-scientist has to start somewhere else. They might use prestige, looking up those tenured folks at Harvard or Princeton or Stanford. They might look to who other journalists trusted, scientists who’ve already been in the news. They might track journals or roles, assuming that a publication in Nature, or a position on a national grant committee, has a special meaning.

And if things stopped there, it would be a pretty elitist system. It still can be, and often is. But there is another step, which softens it.

The trust builds.

When I want to know if a paper in an unfamiliar field makes sense, if it’s worth covering, I try to ask someone I trust. Sometimes, they don’t know, and shrug. Other, more useful, times, they don’t know, but they have a suggestion: someone they trust, who can give me the answer.

And so I ask the new person, and now I trust someone more.

And suppose the new person says the new paper is good, and worth covering, good science and all that jazz.

Well, now I can trust its authors too, right?

So when the next paper comes, I now don’t just have that first someone. I have the person they recommended, and the authors of the previous paper.

The trust builds out, and up, like branches on a tree.

The Twitter of Physics

4 Replies

The paper I talked about last week was frustratingly short. That’s not because the authors were trying to hide anything, or because they were lazy. It’s just that these days, that’s how the game is played.

Twitter started out with a fun gimmick: all posts had to be under 140 characters. The restriction inspired some great comedy, trying to pack as much humor as possible into a bite-sized format. Then, Twitter somehow became the place for journalists to discuss the news, tech people to discuss the industry, and politicians to discuss politics. Now, the length limit fuels conflict, an endless scroll of strong opinions without space for nuance.

Physics has something like this too.

In the 1950’s, it was hard for scientists to get the word out quickly about important results. The journal Physical Review had a trick: instead of normal papers, they’d accept breaking news in the form of letters to the editor, which they could publish more quickly than the average paper. In 1958, editor Samuel Goudsmit founded a new journal, Physical Review Letters (or PRL for short), that would publish those letters all in one place, enforcing a length limit to make them faster to process.

The new journal was a hit, and soon played host to a series of breakthrough results, as scientists chose it as a way to get their work out fast. That popularity created a problem, though. As PRL’s reputation grew, physicists started trying to publish there not because their results needed to get out fast, but because just by publishing in PRL, their papers would be associated with all of the famous breakthroughs the journal had covered. Goudsmit wrote editorials trying to slow this trend, but to no avail.

Now, PRL is arguably the most prestigious journal in physics, hosting over a quarter of Nobel prize-winning work. Its original motivation is no longer particularly relevant: the journal is not all that much faster than other journals in its area, if at all, and is substantially slower than the preprint server arXiv, which is where physicists actually read papers in practice.

The length limit has changed over the years, but not dramatically. It now sits at 3,750 words, typically allowing a five-or-six page article in tight two-column text.

If you see a physics paper on arXiv.org that fits the format, it’s almost certainly aimed at PRL, or one of the journals with similar policies that it inspired. It means the authors think their work is cool enough to hang out with a quarter of all Nobel-winning results, or at least would like it to be.

And that, in turn, means that anyone who wants to claim that prestige has to be concise. They have to leave out details (often, saving them for a later publication in a less-renowned journal). The results have to lean, by the journal’s nature, more to physicist-clickbait and a cleaned-up story than to anything their colleagues can actually replicate.

Is it fun? Yeah, I had some PRLs in my day. It’s a rush, shining up your work as far as it can go, trimming down complexities into six pages of essentials.

But I’m not sure it’s good for the field.

About the OpenAI Amplitudes Paper, but Not as Much as You’d Like

5 Replies

I’ve had a bit more time to dig in to the paper I mentioned last week, where OpenAI collaborated with amplitudes researchers, using one of their internal models to find and prove a simplified version of a particle physics formula. I figured I’d say a bit about my own impressions from reading the paper and OpenAI’s press release.

This won’t be a real “deep dive”, though it will be long nonetheless. As it turns out, most of the questions I’d like answers to aren’t answered in the paper or the press release. Getting them will involve actual journalistic work, i.e. blocking off time to interview people, and I haven’t done that yet. What I can do is talk about what I know so far, and what I’m still wondering.

Context:

Scattering amplitudes are formulas used by particle physicists to make predictions. For a while, people would just calculate these when they needed them, writing down pages of mess that you could plug in numbers to to get answers. However, forty years ago two physicists decided they wanted more, writing “we hope to obtain a simplified form for the answer, making our result not only an experimentalist’s, but a theorist’s delight.”

In their next paper, they managed to find that “theorist’s delight”: a simplified, intuitive-looking answer that worked for calculations involving any number of particles, summarizing many different calculations. Ten years later, a few people had started building on it, and ten years after that, the big shots started paying attention. A whole subfield, “amplitudeology”, grew from that seed, finding new forms of “theorists’s delight” in scattering amplitudes.

Each subfield has its own kind of “theory of victory”, its own concept for what kind of research is most likely to yield progress. In amplitudes, it’s these kinds of simplifications. When they work out well, they yield new, more efficient calculation techniques, yielding new messy results which can be simplified once more. To one extent or another, most of the field is chasing after those situations when simplification works out well.

That motivation shapes both the most ambitious projects of senior researchers, and the smallest student projects. Students often spend enormous amounts of time looking for a nice formula for something and figuring out how to generalize it, often on a question suggested by a senior researcher. These projects mostly serve as training, but occasionally manage to uncover something more impressive and useful, an idea others can build around.

I’m mentioning all of this, because as far as I can tell, what ChatGPT and the OpenAI internal model contributed here roughly lines up with the roles students have on amplitudes papers. In fact, it’s not that different from the role one of the authors, Alfredo Guevara, had when I helped mentor him during his Master’s.

Senior researchers noticed something unusual, suggested by prior literature. They decided to work out the implications, did some calculations, and got some messy results. It wasn’t immediately clear how to clean up the results, or generalize them. So they waited, and eventually were contacted by someone eager for a research project, who did the work to get the results into a nice, general form. Then everyone publishes together on a shared paper.

How impressed should you be?

I said, “as far as I can tell” above. What’s annoying is that this paper makes it hard to tell.

If you read through the paper, they mention AI briefly in the introduction, saying they used GPT-5.2 Pro to conjecture formula (39) in the paper, and an OpenAI internal model to prove it. The press release actually goes into more detail, saying that the humans found formulas (29)-(32), and GPT-5.2 Pro found a special case where it could simplify them to formulas (35)-(38), before conjecturing (39). You can get even more detail from an X thread by one of the authors, OpenAI Research Scientist Alex Lupsasca. Alex had done his PhD with another one of the authors, Andrew Strominger, and was excited to apply the tools he was developing at OpenAI to his old research field. So they looked for a problem, and tried out the one that ended up in the paper.

What is missing, from the paper, press release, and X thread, is any real detail about how the AI tools were used. We don’t have the prompts, or the output, or any real way to assess how much input came from humans and how much from the AI.

(We have more for their follow-up paper, where Lupsasca posted a transcript of the chat.)

Contra some commentators, I don’t think the authors are being intentionally vague here. They’re following business as usual. In a theoretical physics paper, you don’t list who did what, or take detailed account of how you came to the results. You clean things up, and create a nice narrative. This goes double if you’re aiming for one of the most prestigious journals, which tend to have length limits.

This business-as-usual approach is ok, if frustrating, for the average physics paper. It is, however, entirely inappropriate for a paper showcasing emerging technologies. For a paper that was going to be highlighted this highly by OpenAI, the question of how they reached their conclusion is much more interesting than the results themselves. And while I wouldn’t ask them to go to the standards of an actual AI paper, with ablation analysis and all that jazz, they could at least have aimed for the level of detail of my final research paper, which gave samples of the AI input and output used in its genetic algorithm.

For the moment, then, I have to guess what input the AI had, and what it actually accomplished.

Let’s focus on the work done by the internal OpenAI model. The descriptions I’ve seen suggest that it started where GPT-5.2 Pro did, with formulas (29)-(32), but with a more specific prompt that guided what it was looking for. It then ran for 12 hours with no additional input, and both conjectured (39) and proved it was correct, providing essentially the proof that follows formula (39) in the paper.

Given that, how impressed should we be?

First, the model needs to decide to go to a specialized region, instead of trying to simplify the formula in full generality. I don’t know whether they prompted their internal model explicitly to do this. It’s not something I’d expect a student to do, because students don’t know what types of results are interesting enough to get published, so they wouldn’t be confident in computing only a limited version of a result without an advisor telling them it was ok. On the other hand, it is actually something I’d expect an LLM to be unusually likely to do, as a result of not managing to consistently stick to the original request! What I don’t know is whether the LLM proposed this for the right reason: that if you have the formula for one region, you can usually find it for other regions.

Second, the model needs to take formulas (29)-(32), write them in the specialized region, and simplify them to formulas (35)-(38). I’ve seen a few people saying you can do this pretty easily with Mathematica. That’s true, though not every senior researcher is comfortable doing that kind of thing, as you need to be a bit smarter than just using the Simplify[] command. Most of the people on this paper strike me as pen-and-paper types who wouldn’t necessarily know how to do that. It’s definitely the kind of thing I’d expect most students to figure out, perhaps after a couple of weeks of flailing around if it’s their first crack at it. The LLM likely would not have used Mathematica, but would have used SymPy, since these “AI scientist” setups usually can write and execute Python code. You shouldn’t think of this as the AI reasoning through the calculation itself, but it at least sounds like it was reasonably quick at coding it up.

Then, the model needs to conjecture formula (39). This gets highlighted in the intro, but as many have pointed out, it’s pretty easy to do. If any non-physicists are still reading at this point, take a look:

Could you guess (39) from (35)-(38)?

After that, the paper goes over the proof that formula (39) is correct. Most of this proof isn’t terribly difficult, but the way it begins is actually unusual in an interesting way. The proof uses ideas from time-ordered perturbation theory, an old-fashioned way to do particle physics calculations. Time-ordered perturbation theory isn’t something any of the authors are known for using with regularity, but it has recently seen a resurgence in another area of amplitudes research, showing up for example in papers by Matthew Schwartz, a colleague of Strominger at Harvard.

If a student of Strominger came up with an idea drawn from time-ordered perturbation theory, that would actually be pretty impressive. It would mean that, rather than just learning from their official mentor, this student was talking to other people in the department and broadening their horizons, showing a kind of initiative that theoretical physicists value a lot.

From an LLM, though, this is not impressive in the same way. The LLM was not trained by Strominger, it did not learn specifically from Strominger’s papers. Its context suggested it was working on an amplitudes paper, and it produced an idea which would be at home in an amplitudes paper, just a different one than the one it was working on.

While not impressive, that capability may be quite useful. Academic subfields can often get very specialized and siloed. A tool that suggests ideas from elsewhere in the field could help some people broaden their horizons.

Overall, it appears that that twelve-hour OpenAI internal model run reproduced roughly what an unusually bright student would be able to contribute over the course of a several-month project. Like most student projects, you could find a senior researcher who could do the project much faster, maybe even faster than the LLM. But it’s unclear whether any of the authors could have: different senior researchers have different skillsets.

A stab at implications:

If we take all this at face-value, it looks like OpenAI’s internal model was able to do a reasonably competent student project with no serious mistakes in twelve hours. If they started selling that capability, what would happen?

If it’s cheap enough, you might wonder if professors would choose to use the OpenAI model instead of hiring students. I don’t think this would happen, though: I think it misunderstands why these kinds of student projects exist in a theoretical field. Professors sometimes use students to get results they care about, but more often, the student’s interest is itself the motivation, with the professor wanting to educate someone, to empire-build, or just to take on their share of the department’s responsibilities. AI is only useful for this insofar as AI companies continue reaching out to these people to generate press releases: once this is routinely possible, the motivation goes away.

More dangerously, if it’s even cheaper, you could imagine students being tempted to use it. The whole point of a student project is to train and acculturate the student, to get them to the point where they have affection for the field and the capability to do more impressive things. You can’t skip that, but people are going to be tempted to.

And of course, there is the broader question of how much farther this technology can go. That’s the hardest to estimate here, since we don’t know the prompts used. So I don’t know if seeing this result tells us anything more about the bigger picture than we knew going in.

Remaining questions:

At the end of the day, there are a lot of things I still want to know. And if I do end up covering this professionally, they’re things I’ll ask.

  1. What was the prompt given to the internal model, and how much did it do based on that prompt?
  2. Was it really done in one shot, no retries or feedback?
  3. How much did running the internal model cost?
  4. Is this result likely to be useful? Are there things people want to calculate that this could make easier? Recursion relations it could seed? Is it useful for SCET somehow?
  5. How easy would it have been for the authors to do what the LLM did? What about other experts in the community?

Most Academics Don’t Choose Their Specialty

4 Replies

It’s there in every biography, and many interviews: the moment the scientist falls in love with an idea. It can be a kid watching ants in the backyard, a teen peering through a telescope, or an undergrad seeing a heart cell beat on a slide. It’s a story so common that it forms the heart of the public idea of a scientist: not just someone smart enough to understand the world, but someone passionate enough to dive in to their one particular area above all else. It’s easy to think of it as a kind of passion most people never get to experience.

And it does happen, sometimes. But it’s a lot less common than you’d think.

I first started to suspect this as a PhD student. In the US, getting accepted into a PhD program doesn’t guarantee you an advisor to work with. You have to impress a professor to get them to spend limited time and research funding on you. In practice, the result was the academic analog of the dating scene. Students looked for who they might have a chance with, based partly on interest but mostly on availability and luck and rapport, and some bounced off many potential mentors before finding one that would stick.

Then, for those who continued to postdoctoral positions, the same story happened all over again. Now, they were applying for jobs, looking for positions where they were qualified enough and might have some useful contacts, with interest into the specific research topic at best a distant third.

Working in the EU, I’ve seen the same patterns, but offset a bit. Students do a Master’s thesis, and the search for a mentor there is messy and arbitrary in similar ways. Then for a PhD, they apply for specific projects elsewhere, and as each project is its own funded position the same job search dynamics apply.

The picture only really clicked for me, though, when I started doing journalism.

Nowadays, I don’t do science, I interview people about it. The people I interview are by and large survivors: people who got through the process of applying again and again and now are sitting tight in an in-principle permanent position. They’re people with a lot of freedom to choose what to do.

And so I often ask for that reason, that passion, that scientific love at first sight moment: why do you study what you do? It’s a story that audiences love, and thus that editors love, it’s always a great way to begin a piece.

But surprisingly often, I get an unromantic answer. Why study this? Because it was available. Because in the Master’s, that professor taught the intro course. Because in college, their advisor had contacts with that lab to arrange a study project. Because that program accepted people from that country.

And I’ve noticed how even the romantic answers tend to be built on the unromantic ones. The professors who know how to weave a story, to self-promote and talk like a politician, they’ll be able to tell you about falling in love with something, sure. But if you read between the lines, you’ll notice where their anecdotes fall, how they trace a line through the same career steps that less adroit communicators admit were the real motivation.

There’s been times I’ve thought that my problem was a lack of passion, that I wasn’t in love the same way other scientists were in love. I’ve even felt guilty, that I took resources and positions from people who were. There is still some truth in that guilt, I don’t think I had the same passion for my science as most of my colleagues.

But I appreciate more now, that that passion is in part a story. We don’t choose our specialty, making some grand agentic move. Life chooses for us. And the romance comes in how you tell that story, after the fact.

A Paper With a Bluesky Account

2 Replies

People make social media accounts for their pets. Why not a scientific paper?

Anthropologist Ed Hagen made a Bluesky account for his recent preprint, “Menopause averted a midlife energetic crisis with help from older children and parents: A simulation study.” The paper’s topic itself is interesting (menopause is surprisingly rare among mammals, he has a plausible account as to why), but not really the kind of thing I cover here.

Rather, it’s his motivation that’s interesting. Hagen didn’t make the account out of pure self-promotion or vanity. Instead, he’s promoting it as a novel approach to scientific publishing. Unlike Twitter, Bluesky is based on an open, decentralized protocol. Anyone can host an account compatible with Bluesky on their own computer, and anyone with the programming know-how can build a computer program that reads Bluesky posts. That means that nothing actually depends on Bluesky, in principle: the users have ultimate control.

Hagen’s idea, then, is that this could be a way to fulfill the role of scientific journals without channeling money and power to for-profit publishers. If each paper is hosted on a scientist’s own site, the papers can link to each other via following each other. Scientists on Bluesky can follow or like the paper, or comment on and discuss it, creating a way to measure interest from the scientific community and aggregate reviews, two things journals are supposed to cover.

I must admit, I’m skeptical. The interface really seems poorly-suited for this. Hagen’s paper’s account is called @menopause-preprint.edhagen.net. What happens when he publishes another paper on menopause, what will he call it? How is he planning to keep track of interactions from other scientists with an account for every single paper, won’t swapping between fifteen Bluesky accounts every morning get tedious? Or will he just do this with papers he wants to promote?

I applaud the general idea. Decentralized hosting seems like a great way to get around some of the problems of academic publishing. But this will definitely take a lot more work, if it’s ever going to be viable on a useful scale.

Still, I’ll keep an eye on it, and see if others give it a try. Stranger things have happened.

To Measure Something or to Test It

3 Replies

Black holes have been in the news a couple times recently.

On one end, there was the observation of an extremely large black hole in the early universe, when no black holes of the kind were expected to exist. My understanding is this is very much a “big if true” kind of claim, something that could have dramatic implications but may just be being misunderstood. At the moment, I’m not going to try to work out which one it is.

In between, you have a piece by me in Quanta Magazine a couple weeks ago, about tests of whether black holes deviate from general relativity. They don’t, by the way, according to the tests so far.

And on the other end, you have the coverage last week of a “confirmation” (or even “proof”) of the black hole area law.

The black hole area law states that the total area of the event horizons of all black holes will always increase. It’s also known as the second law of black hole thermodynamics, paralleling the second law of thermodynamics that entropy always increases. Hawking proved this as a theorem in 1971, assuming that general relativity holds true.

(That leaves out quantum effects, which indeed can make black holes shrink, as Hawking himself famously later argued.)

The black hole area law is supposed to hold even when two black holes collide and merge. While the combination may lose energy (leading to gravitational waves that carry energy to us), it will still have greater area, in the end, than the sum of the black holes that combined to make it.

Ok, so that’s the area law. What’s this paper that’s supposed to “finally prove” it?

The LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA collaborations recently published a paper based on gravitational waves from one particularly clear collision of black holes, which they measured back in January. They compare their measurements to predictions from general relativity, and checked two things: whether the measurements agreed with predictions based on the Kerr metric (how space-time around a rotating black hole is supposed to behave), and whether they obeyed the area law.

The first check isn’t so different in purpose from the work I wrote about in Quanta Magazine, just using different methods. In both studies, physicists are looking for deviations from the laws of general relativity, triggered by the highly curved environments around black holes. These deviations could show up in one way or another in any black hole collision, so while you would ideally look for them by scanning over many collisions (as the paper I reported on did), you could do a meaningful test even with just one collision. That kind of a check may not be very strenuous (if general relativity is wrong, it’s likely by a very small amount), but it’s still an opportunity, diligently sought, to be proven wrong.

The second check is the one that got the headlines. It also got first billing in the paper title, and a decent amount of verbiage in the paper itself. And if you think about it for more than five minutes, it doesn’t make a ton of sense as presented.

Suppose the black hole area law is wrong, and sometimes black holes lose area when they collide. Even if this happened sometimes, you wouldn’t expect it to happen every time. It’s not like anyone is pondering a reverse black hole area law, where black holes only shrink!

Because of that, I think it’s better to say that LIGO measured the black hole area law for this collision, while they tested whether black holes obey the Kerr metric. In one case, they’re just observing what happened in this one situation. In the other, they can try to draw implications for other collisions.

That doesn’t mean their work wasn’t impressive, but it was impressive for reasons that don’t seem to be getting emphasized. It’s impressive because, prior to this paper, they had not managed to measure the areas of colliding black holes well enough to confirm that they obeyed the area law! The previous collisions looked like they obeyed the law, but when you factor in the experimental error they couldn’t say it with confidence. The current measurement is better, and can. So the new measurement is interesting not because it confirms a fundamental law of the universe or anything like that…it’s interesting because previous measurements were so bad, that they couldn’t even confirm this kind of fundamental law!

That, incidentally, feels like a “missing mood” in pop science. Some things are impressive not because of their amazing scale or awesome implications, but because they are unexpectedly, unintuitively, really really hard to do. These measurements shouldn’t be thought of, or billed, as tests of nature’s fundamental laws. Instead they’re interesting because they highlight what we’re capable of, and what we still need to accomplish.

Newsworthiness Bias

1 Reply

I had a chat about journalism recently, and I had a realization about just how weird science journalism, in particular, is.

Journalists aren’t supposed to be cheerleaders. Journalism and PR have very different goals (which is why I keep those sides of my work separate). A journalist is supposed to be uncompromising, to write the truth even if it paints the source in a bad light.

Norms are built around this. Serious journalistic outlets usually don’t let sources see pieces before they’re published. The source doesn’t have the final say in how they’re portrayed: the journalist reserves the right to surprise them if justified. Investigative journalists can be superstars, digging up damning secrets about the powerful.

When a journalist starts a project, the piece might turn out positive, or negative. A politician might be the best path forward, or a disingenuous grifter. A business might be a great investment opportunity, or a total scam. A popular piece of art might be a triumph, or a disappointment.

And a scientific result?

It might be a fraud, of course. Scientific fraud does exist, and is a real problem. But it’s not common, really. Pick a random scientific paper, filter by papers you might consider reporting on in the first place, and you’re very unlikely to find a fraudulent result. Science journalists occasionally report on spectacularly audacious scientific frauds, or frauds in papers that have already made the headlines. But you don’t expect fraud in the average paper you cover.

It might be scientifically misguided: flawed statistics, a gap in a proof, a misuse of concepts. Journalists aren’t usually equipped to ferret out these issues, though. Instead, this is handled in principle by peer review, and in practice by the scientific community outside of the peer review process.

Instead, for a scientific result, the most common negative judgement isn’t that it’s a lie, or a mistake. It’s that it’s boring.

And certainly, a good science journalist can judge a paper as boring. But there is a key difference between doing that, and judging a politician as crooked or a popular work of art as mediocre. You can write an article about the lying candidate for governor, or the letdown Tarantino movie. But if a scientific result is boring, and nobody else has covered it…then it isn’t newsworthy.

In science, people don’t usually publish their failures, their negative results, their ho-hum obvious conclusions. That fills the literature with only the successes, a phenomenon called publication bias. It also means, though, that scientists try to make their results sound more successful, more important and interesting, than they actually are. Some of the folks fighting the replication crisis have coined a term for this: they call it importance hacking.

The same incentives apply to journalists, especially freelancers. Starting out, it was far from clear that I could make enough to live on. I felt like I had to make every lead count, to find a newsworthy angle on every story idea I could find, because who knew when I would find another one? Over time, I learned to balance that pull better. Now that I’m making most of my income from consulting instead, the pressure has eased almost entirely: there are things I’m tempted to importance-hack for the sake of friends, but nothing that I need to importance-hack to stay in the black.

Doing journalism on the side may be good for me personally at the moment, but it’s not really a model. Much like we need career scientists, even if their work is sometimes boring, we need career journalists, even if they’re sometimes pressured to overhype.

So if we don’t want to incentivize science journalists to be science cheerleaders, what can we do instead?

In science, one way to address publication bias is with pre-registered studies. A scientist sets out what they plan to test, and a journal agrees to publish the result, no matter what it is. You could imagine something like this for science journalism. I once proposed a recurring column where every month I would cover a random paper from arXiv.org, explaining what it meant to accomplish. I get why the idea was turned down, but I still think about it.

In journalism, the arts offer the closest parallel with a different approach. There are many negative reviews of books, movies, and music, and most of them merely accuse the art of being boring, not evil. These exist because they focus on popular works that people pay attention to anyway, so that any negative coverage has someone to convince. You could imagine applying this model to science, though it could be a bit silly. I’m envisioning a journalist who writes an article every time Witten publishes, rating some papers impressive and others disappointing, the same way a music journalist might cover every Taylor Swift album.

Neither of these models are really satisfactory. You could imagine an even more adversarial model, where journalists run around accusing random scientists of wasting the government’s money, but that seems dramatically worse.

So I’m not sure. Science is weird, and hard to accurately value: if we knew how much something mattered already, it would be engineering, not science. Journalism is weird: it’s public-facing research, where the public facing is the whole point. Their combination? Even weirder.

Bonus Info on the LHC and Beyond

4 Replies

Three of my science journalism pieces went up last week!

(This is a total coincidence. One piece was a general explainer “held in reserve” for a nice slot in the schedule, one was a piece I drafted in February, while the third I worked on in May. In journalism, things take as long as they take.)

The shortest piece, at Quanta Magazine, was an explainer about the two types of particles in physics: bosons, and fermions.

I don’t have a ton of bonus info here, because of how tidy the topic is, so just two quick observations.

First, I have the vague impression that Bose, bosons’ namesake, is “claimed” by both modern-day Bangladesh and India. I had friends in grad school who were proud of their fellow physicist from Bangladesh, but while he did his most famous work in Dhaka, he was born and died in Calcutta. Since both were under British India for most of his life, these things likely get complicated.

Second, at the end of the piece I mention a “world on a wire” where fermions and bosons are the same. One example of such a “wire” is a string, like in string theory. One thing all young string theorists learn is “bosonization”: the idea that, in a 1+1-dimensional world like a string, you can re-write any theory with fermions as a theory with bosons, as well as vice versa. This has important implications for how string theory is set up.

Next, in Ars Technica, I had a piece about how LHC physicists are using machine learning to untangle the implications of quantum interference.

As a journalist, it’s really easy to fall into a trap where you give the main person you interview too much credit: after all, you’re approaching the story from their perspective. I tried to be cautious about this, only to be stymied when literally everyone else I interviewed praised Aishik Ghosh to the skies and credited him with being the core motivating force behind the project. So I shrugged my shoulders and followed suit. My understanding is that he has been appropriately rewarded and will soon be a professor at Georgia Tech.

I didn’t list the inventors of the NSBI method that Ghosh and co. used, but names like Kyle Cranmer and Johann Brehmer tend to get bandied about. It’s a method that was originally explored for a more general goal, trying to characterize what the Standard Model might be missing, while the work I talk about in the piece takes it in a new direction, closer to the typical things the ATLAS collaboration looks for.

I also did not say nearly as much as I was tempted to about how the ATLAS collaboration publishes papers, which was honestly one of the most intriguing parts of the story for me. There is a huge amount of review that goes on inside ATLAS before one of their papers reaches the outside world, way more than there ever is in a journal’s peer review process. This is especially true for “physics papers”, where ATLAS is announcing a new conclusion about the physical world, as ATLAS’s reputation stands on those conclusions being reliable. That means starting with an “internal note” that’s hundreds of pages long (and sometimes over a thousand), an editorial board that manages the editing process, disseminating the paper to the entire collaboration for comment, and getting specific experts and institute groups within the collaboration to read through the paper in detail. The process is a bit less onerous for “technical papers”, which describe a new method, not a new conclusion about the world. Still, it’s cumbersome enough that for those papers, often scientists don’t publish them “within ATLAS” at all, instead releasing them independently. The results I reported on are special because they involved a physics paper and a technical paper, both within the ATLAS collaboration process. Instead of just working with partial or simplified data, they wanted to demonstrate the method on a “full analysis”, with all the computation and human coordination that requires. Normally, ATLAS wouldn’t go through the whole process of publishing a physics paper without basing it on new data, but this was different: the method had the potential to be so powerful that the more precise results would be worth stating as physics results alone.

(Also, for the people in the comments worried about training a model on old data: that’s not what they did. In physics, they don’t try to train a neural network model to predict the results of colliders, such a model wouldn’t tell us anything useful. They run colliders to tell us whether what they see matches the analytic, Standard, model. The neural network is trained to predict not what the experiment will say, but what the Standard Model will say, as we can usually only figure that out through time-consuming simulations. So it’s trained on (new) simulations, not on experimental data.)

Finally, on Friday I had a piece in Physics Today about the European Strategy for Particle Physics (or ESPP), and in particular, plans for the next big collider.

Before I even started working on this piece, I saw a thread by Patrick Koppenburg on some of the 263 documents submitted for the ESPP update. While my piece ended up mostly focused on the big circular collider plan that most of the field is converging on (the future circular collider, or FCC), Koppenburg’s thread was more wide-ranging, meant to illustrate the breadth of ideas under discussion. Some of that discussion is about the LHC’s current plans, like its “high-luminosity” upgrade that will see it gather data at much higher rates up until 2040. Some of it is assessing broader concerns, which it may surprise some of you to learn includes sustainability: yes, there are more or less sustainable ways to build giant colliders.

The most fun part of the discussion, though, concerns all of the other collider proposals.

Some report progress on new technologies. Muon colliders are the most famous of these, but there are other proposals that would specifically help with a linear collider. I never did end up understanding what Cooled Copper Colliders are all about, beyond that they let you get more energy in a smaller machine without super-cooling. If you know about them, chime in in the comments! Meanwhile, plasma wakefield acceleration could accelerate electrons on a wave of plasma. This has the disadvantage that you want to collide electrons and positrons, and if you try to stick a positron in plasma it will happily annihilate with the first electron it meets. So what do you do? You go half-and-half, with the HALHF project: speed up the electron with a plasma wakefield, accelerate the positron normally, and have them meet in the middle.

Others are backup plans, or “budget options”, where CERN could get a bit better measurements on some parameters if they can’t stir up the funding to measure the things they really want. They could put electrons and positrons into the LHC tunnel instead of building a new one, for a weaker machine that could still study the Higgs boson to some extent. They could use a similar experiment to produce Z bosons instead, which could serve as a bridge to a different collider project. Or, they could collider the LHC’s proton beam with an electron beam, for an experiment that mixes advantages and disadvantages of some of the other approaches.

While working on the piece, one resource I found invaluable was this colloquium talk by Tristan du Pree, where he goes through the 263 submissions and digs up a lot of interesting numbers and commentary. Read the slides for quotes from the different national inputs and “solo inputs” with comments from particular senior scientists. I used that talk to get a broad impression of what the community was feeling, and it was interesting how well it was reflected in the people I interviewed. The physicist based in Switzerland felt the most urgency for the FCC plan, while the Dutch sources were more cautious, with other Europeans firmly in the middle.

Going over the FCC report itself, one thing I decided to leave out of the discussion was the cost-benefit analysis. There’s the potential for a cute sound-bite there, “see, the collider is net positive!”, but I’m pretty skeptical of the kind of analysis they’re doing there, even if it is standard practice for government projects. Between the biggest benefits listed being industrial benefits to suppliers and early-career researcher training (is a collider unusually good for either of those things, compared to other ways we spend money?) and the fact that about 10% of the benefit is the science itself (where could one possibly get a number like that?), it feels like whatever reasoning is behind this is probably the kind of thing that makes rigor-minded economists wince. I wasn’t able to track down the full calculation though, so I really don’t know, maybe this makes more sense than it looks.

I think a stronger argument than anything along those lines is a much more basic point, about expertise. Right now, we have a community of people trying to do something that is not merely difficult, but fundamental. This isn’t like sending people to space, where many of the engineering concerns will go away when we can send robots instead. This is fundamental engineering progress in how to manipulate the forces of nature (extremely powerful magnets, high voltages) and process huge streams of data. Pushing those technologies to the limit seems like it’s going to be relevant, almost no matter what we end up doing. That’s still not putting the science first and foremost, but it feels a bit closer to an honest appraisal of what good projects like this do for the world.