Tag Archives: PublicPerception

The Twitter of Physics

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.

What was the prompt given to the internal model, and how much did it do based on that prompt?
Was it really done in one shot, no retries or feedback?
How much did running the internal model cost?
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?
How easy would it have been for the authors to do what the LLM did? What about other experts in the community?

Hypothesis: If AI Is Bad at Originality, It’s a Documentation Problem

2 Replies

Recently, a few people have asked me about this paper.

A couple weeks back, OpenAI announced a collaboration with a group of amplitudes researchers, physicists who study the types of calculations people do to make predictions at particle colliders. The amplitudes folks had identified an interesting loophole, finding a calculation that many would have expected to be zero actually gave a nonzero answer. They did the calculation for different examples involving more and more particles, and got some fairly messy answers. They suspected, as amplitudes researchers always expect, that there was a simpler formula, one that worked for any number of particles. But they couldn’t find it.

Then a former amplitudes researcher at OpenAI suggested that they use AI to find it.

“Use AI” can mean a lot of different things, and most of them don’t look much like the way the average person talks to ChatGPT. This was closer than most. They were using “reasoning models”, loops that try to predict the next few phrases in a “chain of thought” again and again and again. Using that kind of tool, they were able to find that simpler formula, and mathematically prove that it was correct.

A few of you are hoping for an in-depth post about what they did, and its implications. This isn’t that. I’m still figuring out if I’ll be writing that for an actual news site, for money, rather than free, for you folks.

Instead, I want to talk about a specific idea I’ve seen crop up around the paper.

See, for some, the existence of a result like this isn’t all that surprising.

Mathematicians have been experimenting with reasoning models for a bit, now. Recently, a group published a systematic study, setting the AI loose on a database of minor open problems proposed by the famously amphetamine-fueled mathematician Paul Erdös. The AI managed to tackle a few of the problems, sometimes by identifying existing solutions that had not yet been linked to the problem database, but sometimes by proofs that appeared to be new.

The Erdös problems solved by the AI were not especially important. Neither was the problem solved by the amplitudes researchers, as far as I can tell at this point.

But I get the impression the amplitudes problem was a bit more interesting than the Erdös problems. The difference, so far, has mostly been attributed to human involvement. This amplitudes paper started because human amplitudes researchers found an interesting loophole, and only after that used the AI. Unlike the mathematicians, they weren’t just searching a database.

This lines up with a general point, one people tend to make much less carefully. It’s often said that, unlike humans, AI will never be truly creative. It can solve mechanical problems, do things people have done before, but it will never be good at having truly novel ideas.

To me, that line of thinking goes a bit too far. I suspect it’s right on one level, that it will be hard for any of these reasoning models to propose anything truly novel. But if so, I think it will be for a different reason.

The thing is, creativity is not as magical as we make it out to be. Our ideas, scientific or artistic, don’t just come from the gods. They recombine existing ideas, shuffling them in ways more akin to randomness than miracle. They’re then filtered through experience, deep heuristics honed over careers. Some people are good at ideas, and some are bad at them. Having ideas takes work, and there are things people do to improve their ideas. Nothing about creativity suggests it should be impossible to mechanize.

However, a machine trained on text won’t necessarily know how to do any of that.

That’s because in science, we don’t write down our inspirations. By the time a result gets into a scientific paper or textbook, it’s polished and refined into a pure argument, cutting out most of the twists and turns that were an essential part of the creative process. Mathematics is even worse, most math papers don’t even mention the motivation behind the work, let alone the path taken to the paper.

This lack of documentation makes it hard for students, making success much more a function of having the right mentors to model good practices, rather than being able to pick them up from literature everyone can access. I suspect it makes it even harder for language models. And if today’s language model-based reasoning tools are bad at that crucial, human-seeming step, of coming up with the right idea at the right time? I think that has more to do with this lack of documentation, than with the fact that they’re “statistical parrots”.

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.

The Timeline for Replacing Theorists Is Not Technological

9 Replies

Quanta Magazine recently published a reflection by Natalie Wolchover on the state of fundamental particle physics. The discussion covers a lot of ground, but one particular paragraph has gotten the lion’s share of the attention. Wolchover talked to Jared Kaplan, the ex-theoretical physicist turned co-founder of Anthropic, one of the foremost AI companies today.

Kaplan was one of Nima Arkani-Hamed’s PhD students, which adds an extra little punch.

There’s a lot to contest here. Is AI technology anywhere close to generating papers as good as the top physicists, or is that relegated to the sci-fi future? Does Kaplan really believe this, or is he just hyping up his company?

I don’t have any special insight into those questions, about the technology and Kaplan’s motivations. But I think that, even if we trusted him on the claim that AI could be generating Witten- or Nima-level papers in three years, that doesn’t mean it will replace theoretical physicists. That part of the argument isn’t a claim about the technology, but about society.

So let’s take the technological claims as given, and make them a bit more specific. Since we don’t have any objective way of judging the quality of scientific papers, let’s stick to the subjective. Today, there are a lot of people who get excited when Witten posts a new paper. They enjoy reading them, they find the insights inspiring, they love the clarity of the writing and their tendency to clear up murky ideas. They also find them reliable: the papers very rarely have mistakes, and don’t leave important questions unanswered.

Let’s use that as our baseline, then. Suppose that Anthropic had an AI workflow that could reliably write papers that were just as appealing to physicists as Witten’s papers are, for the same reasons. What happens to physicists?

Witten himself is retired, which for an academic means you do pretty much the same thing you were doing before, but now paid out of things like retirement savings and pension funds, not an institute budget. Nobody is going to fire Witten, there’s no salary to fire him from. And unless he finds these developments intensely depressing and demoralizing (possible, but very much depends on how this is presented), he’s not going to stop writing papers. Witten isn’t getting replaced.

More generally, though, I don’t think this directly results in anyone getting fired, or in universities trimming positions. The people making funding decisions aren’t just sitting on a pot of money, trying to maximize research output. They’ve got money to be spent on hires, and different pools of money to be spent on equipment, and the hires get distributed based on what current researchers at the institutes think is promising. Universities want to hire people who can get grants, to help fund the university, and absent rules about AI personhood, the AIs won’t be applying for grants.

Funding cuts might be argued for based on AI, but that will happen long before AI is performing at the Witten level. We already see this happening in other industries or government agencies, where groups that already want to cut funding are getting think tanks and consultants to write estimates that justify cutting positions, without actually caring whether those estimates are performed carefully enough to justify their conclusions. That can happen now, and doesn’t depend on technological progress.

AI could also replace theoretical physicists in another sense: the physicists themselves might use AI to do most of their work. That’s more plausible, but here adoption still heavily depends on social factors. Will people feel like they are being assessed on whether they can produce these Witten-level papers, and that only those who make them get hired, or funded? Maybe. But it will propagate unevenly, from subfield to subfield. Some areas will make their own rules forbidding AI content, there will be battles and scandals and embarrassments aplenty. It won’t be a single switch, the technology alone setting the timeline.

Finally, AI could replace theoretical physicists in another way, by people outside of academia filling the field so much that theoretical physicists have nothing more that they want to do. Some non-physicists are very passionate about physics, and some of those people have a lot of money. I’ve done writing work for one such person, whose foundation is now attempting to build an AI Physicist. If these AI Physicists get to Witten-level quality, they might start writing compelling paper after compelling paper. Those papers, though, will due to their origins be specialized. Much as philanthropists mostly fund the subfields they’ve heard of, philanthropist-funded AI will mostly target topics the people running the AI have heard are important. Much like physicists themselves adopting the technology, there will be uneven progress from subfield to subfield, inch by socially-determined inch.

In a hard-to-quantify area like progress in science, that’s all you can hope for. I suspect Kaplan got a bit of a distorted picture of how progress and merit work in theoretical physics. He studied with Nima Arkani-Hamed, who is undeniably exceptionally brilliant but also undeniably exceptionally charismatic. It must feel to a student of Nima’s that academia simply hires the best people, that it does whatever it takes to accomplish the obviously best research. But the best research is not obvious.

I think some of these people imagine a more direct replacement process, not arranged by topic and tastes, but by goals. They picture AI sweeping in and doing what theoretical physics was always “meant to do”: solve quantum gravity, and proceed to shower us with teleporters and antigravity machines. I don’t think there’s any reason to expect that to happen. If you just asked a machine to come up with the most useful model of the universe for a near-term goal, then in all likelihood it wouldn’t consider theoretical high-energy physics at all. If you see your AI as a tool to navigate between utopia and dystopia, theoretical physics might matter at some point: when your AI has devoured the inner solar system, is about to spread beyond the few light-minutes when it can signal itself in real-time, and has to commit to a strategy. But as long as the inner solar system remains un-devoured, I don’t think you’ll see an obviously successful theory of fundamental physics.

On Theories of Everything and Cures for Cancer

5 Replies

Some people are disappointed in physics. Shocking, I know!

Those people, when careful enough, clarify that they’re disappointed in fundamental physics: not the physics of materials or lasers or chemicals or earthquakes, or even the physics of planets and stars, but the physics that asks big fundamental questions, about the underlying laws of the universe and where they come from.

Some of these people are physicists themselves, or were once upon a time. These often have in mind other directions physicists should have gone. They think that, with attention and funding, their own ideas would have gotten us closer to our goals than the ideas that, in practice, got the attention and the funding.

Most of these people, though, aren’t physicists. They’re members of the general public.

It’s disappointment from the general public, I think, that feels the most unfair to physicists. The general public reads history books, and hears about a series of revolutions: Newton and Maxwell, relativity and quantum mechanics, and finally the Standard Model. They read science fiction books, and see physicists finding “theories of everything”, and making teleporters and antigravity engines. And they wonder what made the revolutions stop, and postponed the science fiction future.

Physicists point out, rightly, that this is an oversimplified picture of how the world works. Something happens between those revolutions, the kind of progress not simple enough to summarize for history class. People tinker away at puzzles, and make progress. And they’re still doing that, even for the big fundamental questions. Physicists know more about even faraway flashy topics like quantum gravity than they did ten years ago. And while physicists and ex-physicists can argue about whether that work is on the right path, it’s certainly farther along its own path than it was. We know things we didn’t know before, progress continues to be made. We aren’t at the “revolution” stage yet, or even all that close. But most progress isn’t revolutionary, and no-one can predict how often revolutions should take place. A revolution is never “due”, and thus can never be “overdue”.

Physicists, in turn, often don’t notice how normal this kind of reaction from the public is. They think people are being stirred up by grifters, or negatively polarized by excess hype, that fundamental physics is facing an unfair reaction only shared by political hot-button topics. But while there are grifters, and people turned off by the hype…this is also just how the public thinks about science.

Have you ever heard the phrase “a cure for cancer”?

Fiction is full of scientists working on a cure for cancer, or who discovered a cure for cancer, or were prevented from finding a cure for cancer. It’s practically a trope. It’s literally a trope.

It’s also a real thing people work on, in a sense. Many scientists work on better treatments for a variety of different cancers. They’re making real progress, even dramatic progress. As many whose loved ones have cancer know, it’s much more likely for someone with cancer to survive than it was, say, twenty years ago.

But those cures don’t meet the threshold for science fiction, or for the history books. They don’t move us, like the polio vaccine did, from a world where you know many people with a disease to a world where you know none. They don’t let doctors give you a magical pill, like in a story or a game, that instantly cures your cancer.

For the vast majority of medical researchers, that kind of goal isn’t realistic, and isn’t worth thinking about. The few that do pursue it work towards extreme long-term solutions, like periodically replacing everyone’s skin with a cloned copy.

So while you will run into plenty of media descriptions of scientists working on cures for cancer, you won’t see the kind of thing the public expects is an actual “cure for cancer”. And people are genuinely disappointed about this! “Where’s my cure for cancer?” is a complaint on the same level as “where’s my hovercar?” There are people who think that medical science has made no progress in fifty years, because after all those news articles, we still don’t have a cure for cancer.

I appreciate that there are real problems in what messages are being delivered to the public about physics, both from hypesters in the physics mainstream and grifters outside it. But put those problems aside, and a deeper issue remains. People understand the world as best they can, as a story. And the world is complicated and detailed, full of many people making incremental progress on many things. Compared to a story, the truth is always at a disadvantage.

Energy Is That Which Is Conserved

2 Replies

In school, kids learn about different types of energy. They learn about solar energy and wind energy, nuclear energy and chemical energy, electrical energy and mechanical energy, and potential energy and kinetic energy. They learn that energy is conserved, that it can never be created or destroyed, but only change form. They learn that energy makes things happen, that you can use energy to do work, that energy is different from matter.

Some, between good teaching and good students, manage to impose order on the jumble of concepts and terms. Others end up envisioning the whole story a bit like Pokemon, with different types of some shared “stuff”.

Energy isn’t “stuff”, though. So what is it? What relates all these different types of things?

Energy is something which is conserved.

The mathematician Emmy Noether showed that, when the laws of physics are symmetrical, they come with a conserved quantity. For example, because the laws of the physics are the same from place to place, momentum is conserved. Similarly, because the laws of physics are the same from one time to another, Noether’s theorem states that there must be some quantity related to time, some number we can calculate, that is conserved, even as other things change. We call that number energy.

If energy is that simple, why are there all those types?

Energy is a number we can calculate. It’s a number we can calculate for different things. If you have a detailed description of how something in physics works, you can use that description to calculate that thing’s energy. In school, you memorize formulas like $\frac{1}{2}m v^2$ and $m g h$ . These are all formulas that, with a bit more knowledge, you could calculate. They are the things that, for a something that meets the conditions, are conserved. They are things that, according to Noether’s theorem, stay the same.

Because of this, you shouldn’t think of energy as a substance, or a fuel. Energy is something we can do: we physicists, and we students of physics. We can take a physical system, and see what about it ought to be conserved. Energy is an action, a calculation, a conceptual tool that can be used to make predictions.

Most things are, in the end.

Bonus Info For “Cosmic Paradox Reveals the Awful Consequence of an Observer-Free Universe”

9 Replies

I had a piece in Quanta Magazine recently, about a tricky paradox that’s puzzling quantum gravity researchers and some early hints at its resolution.

The paradox comes from trying to describe “closed universes”, which are universes where it is impossible to reach the edge, even if you had infinite time to do it. This could be because the universe wraps around like a globe, or because the universe is expanding so fast no traveler could ever reach an edge. Recently, theoretical physicists have been trying to describe these closed universes, and have noticed a weird issue: each such universe appears to have only one possible quantum state. In general, quantum systems have more possible states the more complex they are, so for a whole universe to have only one possible state is a very strange thing, implying a bizarrely simple universe. Most worryingly, our universe may well be closed. Does that mean that secretly, the real world has only one possible state?

There is a possible solution that a few groups are playing around with. The argument that a closed universe has only one state depends on the fact that nothing inside a closed universe can reach the edge. But if nothing can reach the edge, then trying to observe the universe as a whole from outside would tell you nothing of use. Instead, any reasonable measurement would have to come from inside the universe. Such a measurement introduces a new kind of “edge of the universe”, this time not in the far distance, but close by: the edge between an observer and the rest of the world. And when you add that edge to the calculations, the universe stops being closed, and has all the many states it ought to.

This was an unusually tricky story for me to understand. I narrowly avoided several misconceptions, and I’m still not sure I managed to dodge all of them. Likewise, it was unusually tricky for the editors to understand, and I suspect it was especially tricky for Quanta’s social media team to understand.

It was also, quite clearly, tricky for the readers to understand. So I thought I would use this post to clear up a few misconceptions. I’ll say a bit more about what I learned investigating this piece, and try to clarify what the result does and does not mean.

Q: I’m confused about the math terms you’re using. Doesn’t a closed set contain its boundary?

A: Annoyingly, what physicists mean by a closed universe is a bit different from what mathematicians mean by a closed manifold, which is in turn more restrictive than what mathematicians mean by a closed set. One way to think about this that helped me is that in an open set you can take a limit that takes you out of the set, which is like being able to describe a (possibly infinite) path that takes you “out of the universe”. A closed set doesn’t have that, every path, no matter how long, still ends up in the same universe.

Q: So a bunch of string theorists did a calculation and got a result that doesn’t make sense, a one-state universe. What if they’re just wrong?

A: Two things:

First, the people I talked to emphasized that it’s pretty hard to wiggle out of the conclusion. It’s not just a matter of saying you don’t believe in string theory and that’s that. The argument is based in pretty fundamental principles, and it’s not easy to propose a way out that doesn’t mess up something even more important.

That’s not to say it’s impossible. One of the people I interviewed, Henry Maxfield, thinks that some of the recent arguments are misunderstanding how to use one of their core techniques, in a way that accidentally presupposes the one-state universe.

But even he thinks that the bigger point, that closed universes have only one state, is probably true.

And that’s largely due to a second reason: there are older arguments that back the conclusion up.

One of the oldest dates back to John Wheeler, a physicist famous for both deep musings about the nature of space and time and coining evocative terms like “wormhole”. In the 1960’s, Wheeler argued that, in a theory where space and time can be curved, one should think of a system’s state as including every configuration it can evolve into over time, since it can be tricky to specify a moment “right now”. In a closed universe, you could expect a quantum system to explore every possible configuration…meaning that such a universe should be described by only one state.

Later, physicists studying holography ran into a similar conclusion. They kept noticing systems in quantum gravity where you can describe everything that happens inside by what happens on the edges. If there are no edges, that seems to suggest that in some sense there is nothing inside. Apparently, Lenny Susskind had a slide at the end of talks in the 90’s where he kept bringing up this point.

So even if the modern arguments are wrong, and even if string theory is wrong…it still looks like the overall conclusion is right.

Q: If a closed universe has only one state, does that make it deterministic, and thus classical?

A: Oh boy…

So, on the one hand, there is an idea, which I think also goes back to Wheeler, that asks: “if the universe as a whole has a wavefunction, how does it collapse?” One possibility is that the universe has only one state, so that nobody is needed to collapse the wavefunction, it already is in a definite state.

On the other hand, a universe with only one state does not actually look much like a classical universe. Our universe looks classical largely due to a process called decoherence, where small quantum systems interact with big quantum systems with many states, diluting quantum effects until the world looks classical. If there is only one state, there are no big systems to interact with, and the world has large quantum fluctuations that make it look very different from a classical universe.

Q: How, exactly, are you defining “observer”?

A: A few commenters helpfully chimed in to talk about how physics models observers as “witness” systems, objects that preserve some record of what happens to them. A simple example is a ball sitting next to a bowl: if you find the ball in the bowl later, it means something moved it. This process, preserving what happens and making it more obvious, is in essence how physicists think about observers.

However, this isn’t the whole story in this case. Here, different research groups introducing observers are doing it in different ways. That’s, in part, why none of them are confident they have the right answer.

One of the approaches describes an observer in terms of its path through space and time, its worldline. Instead of a detailed witness system with specific properties, all they do is pick out a line and say “the observer is there”. Identifying that line, and declaring it different from its surroundings, seems to be enough to recover the complexity the universe ought to have.

The other approach treats the witness system in a bit more detail. We usually treat an observer in quantum mechanics as infinitely large compared to the quantum systems they measure. This approach instead gives the observer a finite size, and uses that to estimate how far their experience will be from classical physics.

Crucially, both approaches aren’t a matter of defining a physical object, and looking for it in the theory. Given a collection of atoms, neither team can tell you what is an observer, and what isn’t. Instead, in each approach, the observer is arbitrary: a choice, made by us when we use quantum mechanics, of what to count as an observer and what to count as the rest of the world. That choice can be made in many different ways, and each approach tries to describe what happens when you change that choice.

This is part of what makes this approach uncomfortable to some more philosophically-minded physicists: it treats observers not as a predictable part of the physical world, but as a mathematical description used to make statements about the world.

Q: If these ideas come from AdS/CFT, which is an open universe, how do you use them to describe a closed universe?

A: While more examples emerged later, initially theorists were thinking about two types of closed universes:

First, think about a black hole. You may have heard that when you fall into a black hole, you watch the whole universe age away before your eyes, due to the dramatic differences in the passage of time caused by the extreme gravity. Once you’ve seen the outside universe fade away, you are essentially in a closed universe of your own. The outside world will never affect you again, and you are isolated, with no path to the outside. These black hole interiors are one of the examples theorists looked at.

The other example are so-called “baby universes”. When physicists use quantum mechanics to calculate the chance of something happening, they have to add up every possible series of events that could have happened in between. For quantum gravity, this includes every possible arrangement of space and time. This includes arrangements with different shapes, including ones with tiny extra “baby universes” which branch off from the main universe and return. Universes with these “baby universes” are another example that theorists considered to understand closed universes.

Q: So wait, are you actually saying the universe needs to be observed to exist? That’s ridiculous, didn’t the universe exist long before humans existed to observe it? Is this some sort of Copenhagen Interpretation thing, or that thing called QBism?

You’re starting to ask philosophical questions, and here’s the thing:

There are physicists who spend their time thinking about how to interpret quantum mechanics. They talk to philosophers, and try to figure out how to answer these kinds of questions in a consistent and systematic way, keeping track of all the potential pitfalls and implications. They’re part of a subfield called “quantum foundations”.

The physicists whose work I was talking about in that piece are not those people.

Of the people I interviewed, one of them, Rob Myers, probably has lunch with quantum foundations researchers on occasion. The others, based at places like MIT and the IAS, probably don’t even do that.

Instead, these are people trying to solve a technical problem, people whose first inclination is to put philosophy to the side, and “shut up and calculate”. These people did a calculation that ought to have worked, checking how many quantum states they could find in a closed universe, and found a weird and annoying answer: just one. Trying to solve the problem, they’ve done technical calculation work, introducing a path through the universe, or a boundary around an observer, and seeing what happens. While some of them may have their own philosophical leanings, they’re not writing works of philosophy. Their papers don’t talk through the philosophical implications of their ideas in all that much detail, and they may well have different thoughts as to what those implications are.

So while I suspect I know the answers they would give to some of these questions, I’m not sure.

Instead, how about I tell you what I think?

I’m not a philosopher, I can’t promise my views will be consistent, that they won’t suffer from some pitfall. But unlike other people’s views, I can tell you what my own views are.

To start off: yes, the universe existed before humans. No, there is nothing special about our minds, we don’t have psychic powers to create the universe with our thoughts or anything dumb like that.

What I think is that, if we want to describe the world, we ought to take lessons from science.

Science works. It works for many reasons, but two important ones stand out.

Science works because it leads to technology, and it leads to technology because it guides actions. It lets us ask, if I do this, what will happen? What will I experience?

And science works because it lets people reach agreement. It lets people reach agreement because it lets us ask, if I observe this, what do I expect you to observe? And if we agree, we can agree on the science.

Ultimately, if we want to describe the world with the virtues of science, our descriptions need to obey this rule: they need to let us ask “what if?” questions about observations.

That means that science cannot avoid an observer. It can often hide the observer, place them far away and give them an infinite mind to behold what they see, so that one observer is essentially the same as another. But we shouldn’t expect to always be able to do this. Sometimes, we can’t avoid saying something about the observer: about where they are, or how big they are, for example.

These observers, though, don’t have to actually exist. We should be able to ask “what if” questions about others, and that means we should be able to dream up fictional observers, and ask, if they existed, what would they see? We can imagine observers swimming in the quark-gluon plasma after the Big Bang, or sitting inside a black hole’s event horizon, or outside our visible universe. The existence of the observer isn’t a physical requirement, but a methodological one: a restriction on how we can make useful, scientific statements about the world. Our theory doesn’t have to explain where observers “come from”, and can’t and shouldn’t do that. The observers aren’t part of the physical world being described, they’re a precondition for us to describe that world.

Is this the Copenhagen Interpretation? I’m not a historian, but I don’t think so. The impression I get is that there was no real Copenhagen Interpretation, that Bohr and Heisenberg, while more deeply interested in philosophy than many physicists today, didn’t actually think things through in enough depth to have a perspective you can name and argue with.

Is this QBism? I don’t think so. It aligns with some things QBists say, but they say a lot of silly things as well. It’s probably some kind of instrumentalism, for what that’s worth.

Is it logical positivism? I’ve been told logical positivists would argue that the world outside the visible universe does not exist. If that’s true, I’m not a logical positivist.

Is it pragmatism? Maybe? What I’ve seen of pragmatism definitely appeals to me, but I’ve seen my share of negative characterizations as well.

In the end, it’s an idea about what’s useful and what’s not, about what moves science forward and what doesn’t. It tries to avoid being preoccupied with unanswerable questions, and as much as possible to cash things out in testable statements. If I do this, what happens? What if I did that instead?

The results I covered for Quanta, to me, show that the observer matters on a deep level. That isn’t a physical statement, it isn’t a mystical statement. It’s a methodological statement: if we want to be scientists, we can’t give up on the observer.

Mandatory Dumb Acronyms

Reminder to Physics Popularizers: “Discover” Is a Technical Term

4 gravitons

Stories about physics from someone who's been there