Tag Archives: PublicPerception

AI Can’t Do Science…And Neither Can Other Humans

6 Replies

Seen on Twitter:

I don’t know the context here, so I can’t speak to what Prof. Cronin meant. But it got me thinking.

Suppose you, like Prof. Cronin, were to insist that AI “cannot in principle” do science, because AI “is not autonomous” and “does not come up with its own problems to solve”. What might you mean?

You might just be saying that AI is bad at coming up with new problems to solve. That’s probably fair, at least at the moment. People have experimented with creating simple “AI researchers” that “study” computer programs, coming up with hypotheses about the programs’ performance and testing them. But it’s a long road from that to reproducing the much higher standards human scientists have to satisfy.

You probably don’t mean that, though. If you did, you wouldn’t have said “in principle”. You mean something stronger.

More likely, you might mean that AI cannot come up with its own problems, because AI is a tool. People come up with problems, and use AI to help solve them. In this perspective, not only is AI “not autonomous”, it cannot be autonomous.

On a practical level, this is clearly false. Yes, machine learning models, the core technology in current AI, are set up to answer questions. A user asks something, and receives the model’s prediction of the answer. That’s a tool, but for the more flexible models like GPT it’s trivial to turn it into something autonomous. Just add another program: a loop that asks the model what to do, does it, tells the model the result, and asks what to do next. Like taping a knife to a Roomba, you’ve made a very simple modification to make your technology much more dangerous.

You might object, though, that this simple modification of GPT is not really autonomous. After all, a human created it. That human had some goal, some problem they wanted to solve, and the AI is just solving the problem for them.

That may be a fair description of current AI, but insisting it’s true in principle has some awkward implications. If you make a “physics AI”, just tell it to do “good physics”, and it starts coming up with hypotheses you’d never thought of, is it really fair to say it’s just solving your problem?

What if the AI, instead, was a child? Picture a physicist encouraging a child to follow in their footsteps, filling their life with physics ideas and rhapsodizing about the hard problems of the field at the dinner table. Suppose the child becomes a physicist in turn, and finds success later in life. Were they really autonomous? Were they really a scientist?

What if the child, instead, was a scientific field, and the parent was the general public? The public votes for representatives, the representatives vote to hire agencies, and the agencies promise scientists they’ll give them money if they like the problems they come up with. Who is autonomous here?

(And what happens if someone takes a hammer to that process? I’m…still not talking about this! No-politics-rule still in effect, sorry! I do have a post planned, but it will have to wait until I can deal with the fallout.)

At this point, you’d probably stop insisting. You’d drop that “in principle”, and stick with the claim I started with, that current AI can’t be a scientist.

But you have another option.

You can accept the whole chain of awkward implications, bite all the proverbial bullets. Yes, you insist, AI is not autonomous. Neither is the physicist’s child in your story, and neither are the world’s scientists paid by government grants. Each is a tool, used by the one, true autonomous scientist: you.

You are stuck in your skull, a blob of curious matter trained on decades of experience in the world and pre-trained with a couple billion years of evolution. For whatever reason, you want to know more, so you come up with problems to solve. You’re probably pretty vague about those problems. You might want to see more pretty pictures of space, or wrap your head around the nature of time. So you turn the world into your tool. You vote and pay taxes, so your government funds science. You subscribe to magazines and newspapers, so you hear about it. You press out against the world, and along with the pressure that already exists it adds up, and causes change. Biological intelligences and artificial intelligences scurry at your command. From their perspective, they are proposing their own problems, much more detailed and complex than the problems you want to solve. But from yours, they’re your limbs beyond limbs, sight beyond sight, asking the fundamental questions you want answered.

Cool Asteroid News

Leave a reply

Did you hear about the asteroid?

Which one?

You might have heard that an asteroid named 2024 YR4 is going to come unusually close to the Earth in 2032. When it first made the news, astronomers estimated a non-negligible chance of it hitting us: about three percent. That’s small enough that they didn’t expect it to happen, but large enough to plan around it: people invest in startups with a smaller chance of succeeding. Still, people were fairly calm about this one, and there are a couple of good reasons:

  • First, this isn’t a “kill the dinosaurs” asteroid, it’s much smaller. This is a “Tunguska Event” asteroid. Still pretty bad if it happens near a populated area, but not the end of life as we know it.
  • We know about it far in advance, and space agencies have successfully deflected an asteroid before, for a test. If it did pose a risk, it’s quite likely they’d be able to change its path so it misses the Earth instead.
  • It’s tempting to think of that 3% chance as like a roll of a hundred-sided die: the asteroid is on a random path, roll 1 to 3 and it will hit the Earth, roll higher and it won’t, and nothing we do will change that. In reality, though, that 3% was a measure of our ignorance. As astronomers measure the asteroid more thoroughly, they’ll know more and more about its path, and each time they figure something out, they’ll update the number.

And indeed, the number has been updated. In just the last few weeks, the estimated probability of impact has dropped from 3% to a few thousandths of a percent, as more precise observations clarified the asteroid’s path. There’s still a non-negligible chance it will hit the moon (about two percent at the moment), but it’s far too small to do more than make a big flashy crater.

It’s kind of fun to think that there are people out there who systematically track these things, with a plan to deal with them. It feels like something out of a sci-fi novel.

But I find the other asteroid more fun.

In 2020, a probe sent by NASA visited an asteroid named Bennu, taking samples which it carefully packaged and brought back to Earth. Now, scientists have analyzed the samples, revealing several moderately complex chemicals that have an important role in life on Earth, like amino acids and the bases that make up RNA and DNA. Interestingly, while on Earth these molecules all have the same “handedness“, the molecules on Bennu are divided about 50/50. Something similar was seen on samples retrieved from another asteroid, so this reinforces the idea that amino acids and nucleotide bases in space do not have a preferred handedness.

I first got into physics for the big deep puzzles, the ones that figure into our collective creation story. Where did the universe come from? Why are its laws the way they are? Over the ten years since I got my PhD, it’s felt like the answers to these questions have gotten further and further away, with new results serving mostly to rule out possible explanations with greater and greater precision.

Biochemistry has its own deep puzzles figuring into our collective creation story, and the biggest one is abiogenesis: how life formed from non-life. What excites me about these observations from Bennu is that it represents real ongoing progress on that puzzle. By glimpsing a soup of ambidextrous molecules, Bennu tells us something about how our own molecules’ handedness could have developed, and rules out ways that it couldn’t have. In physics, if we could see an era of the universe when there were equal amounts of matter and antimatter, we’d be ecstatic: it would confirm that the imbalance between matter and antimatter is a real mystery, and show us where we need to look for the answer. I love that researchers on the origins of life have reason right now to be similarly excited.

Some FAQ for Microsoft’s Majorana 1 Chip

2 Replies

Recently, Microsoft announced a fancy new quantum computing chip called Majorana 1. I’ve noticed quite a bit of confusion about what they actually announced, and while there’s a great FAQ page about it on the quantum computing blog Shtetl Optimized, the post there aims at a higher level, assuming you already know the basics. You can think of this post as a complement to that one, that tries to cover some basic things Shtetl Optimized took for granted.

Q: In the announcement, Microsoft said:

“It leverages the world’s first topoconductor, a breakthrough type of material which can observe and control Majorana particles to produce more reliable and scalable qubits, which are the building blocks for quantum computers.”

That sounds wild! Are they really using particles in a computer?

A: All computers use particles. Electrons are particles!

Q: You know what I mean!

A: You’re asking if these are “particle physics” particles, like the weird types they try to observe at the LHC?

No, they’re not.

Particle physicists use a mathematical framework called quantum field theory, where particles are ripples in things called quantum fields that describe properties of the universe. But they aren’t the only people to use that framework. Instead of studying properties of the universe you can study properties of materials, weird alloys and layers of metal and crystal that do weird and useful things. The properties of these materials can be approximately described with the same math, with quantum fields. Just as the properties of the universe ripple to produce particles, these properties of materials ripple to produce what are called quasiparticles. Ultimately, these quasiparticles come down to movements of ordinary matter, usually electrons in the original material. They’re just described with a kind of math that makes them look like their own particles.

Q: So, what are these Majorana particles supposed to be?

A: In quantum field theory, most particles come with an antimatter partner. Electrons, for example, have partners called positrons, with a positive electric charge instead of a negative one. These antimatter partners have to exist due to the math of quantum field theory, but there is a way out: some particles are their own antimatter partner, letting one particle cover both roles. This happens for some “particle physics particles”, but all the examples we’ve found are a type of particle called a “boson”, particles related to forces. In 1937, the physicist Ettore Majorana figured out the math you would need to make a particle like this that was a fermion instead, the other main type of particle that includes electrons and protons. So far, we haven’t found one of these Majorana fermions in nature, though some people think the elusive neutrino particles could be an example. Others, though, have tried instead to find a material described by Majorana’s theory. This should in principle be easier, you can build a lot of different materials after all. But it’s proven quite hard for people to do. Back in 2018, Microsoft claimed they’d managed this, but had to retract the claim. This time, they seem more confident, though the scientific community is still not convinced.

Q: And what’s this topoconductor they’re talking about?

A: Topoconductor is short for topological superconductor. Superconductors are materials that conduct electricity much better than ordinary metals.

Q: And, topological means? Something about donuts, right?

A: If you’ve heard anything about topology, you’ve heard that it’s a type of mathematics where donuts are equivalent to coffee cups. You might have seen an animation of a coffee cup being squished and mushed around until the ring of the handle becomes the ring of a donut.

This isn’t actually the important part of topology. The important part is that, in topology, a ball is not equivalent to a donut.

Topology is the study of which things can change smoothly into one another. If you want to change a donut into a ball, you have to slice through the donut’s ring or break the surface inside. You can’t smoothly change one to another. Topologists study shapes of different kinds of things, figuring out which ones can be changed into each other smoothly and which can’t.

Q: What does any of that have to do with quantum computers?

A: The shapes topologists study aren’t always as simple as donuts and coffee cups. They can also study the shape of quantum fields, figuring out which types of quantum fields can change smoothly into each other and which can’t.

The idea of topological quantum computation is to use those rules about what can change into each other to encode information. You can imagine a ball encoding zero, and a donut encoding one. A coffee cup would then also encode one, because it can change smoothly into a donut, while a box would encode zero because you can squash the corners to make it a ball. This helps, because it means that you don’t screw up your information by making smooth changes. If you accidentally drop your box that encodes zero and squish a corner, it will still encode zero.

This matters in quantum computing because it is very easy to screw up quantum information. Quantum computers are very delicate, and making them work reliably has been immensely challenging, requiring people to build much bigger quantum computers so they can do each calculation with many redundant backups. The hope is that topological superconductors would make this easier, by encoding information in a way that is hard to accidentally change.

Q: Cool. So does that mean Microsoft has the best quantum computer now?

A: The machine Microsoft just announced has only a single qubit, the quantum equivalent of just a single bit of computer memory. At this point, it can’t do any calculations. It can just be read, giving one or zero. The hope is that the power of the new method will let Microsoft catch up with companies that have computers with hundred of qubits, and help them arrive faster at the millions of qubits that will be needed to do anything useful.

Q: Ah, ok. But it sounds like they accomplished some crazy Majorana stuff at least, right?

A: Umm…

Read the Shtetl-Optimized FAQ if you want more details. The short answer is that this is still controversial. So far, the evidence they’ve made public isn’t enough to show that they found these Majorana quasiparticles, or that they made a topological superconductor. They say they have more recent evidence that they haven’t published yet. We’ll see.

Science Journalism Tasting Notes

Leave a reply

When you’ve done a lot of science communication you start to see patterns. You notice the choices people make when they write a public talk or a TV script, the different goals and practical constraints that shape a piece. I’ve likened it to watching an old kung fu movie and seeing where the wires are.

I don’t have a lot of experience doing science journalism, I can’t see the wires yet. But I’m starting to notice things, subtle elements like notes at a wine-tasting. Just like science communication by academics, science journalism is shaped by a variety of different goals.

First, there’s the need for news to be “new”. A classic news story is about something that happened recently, or even something that’s happening right now. Historical stories usually only show up as new “revelations”, something the journalist or a researcher recently dug up. This isn’t a strict requirement, and it seems looser in science journalism than in other types of journalism: sometimes you can have a piece on something cool the audience might not know, even if it’s not “new”. But it shapes how things are covered, it means that a piece on something old will often have something tying it back to a recent paper or an ongoing research topic.

Then, a news story should usually also be a “story”. Science communication can sometimes involve a grab-bag of different topics, like a TED talk that shows off a few different examples. Journalistic pieces often try to deliver one core message, with details that don’t fit the narrative needing to wait for another piece where they fit better. You might be tempted to round this off to saying that journalists are better writers than academics, since it’s easier for a reader to absorb one message than many. But I think it also ties to the structure. Journalists do have content with multiple messages, it just usually is not published as one story, but a thematic collection of stories.

Combining those two goals, there’s a tendency for news to focus on what happened. “First they had the idea, then there were challenges, then they made their discovery, now they look to the future.” You can’t just do that, though, because of another goal: pedagogy. Your audience doesn’t know everything you know. In order for them to understand what happened, there are often other things they have to understand. In non-science news, this can sometimes be brief, a paragraph that gives the background for people who have been “living under a rock”. In science news, there’s a lot more to explain. You have to teach something, and teaching well can demand a structure very different from the one-step-at a time narrative of what happened. Balancing these two is tricky, and it’s something I’m still learning how to do, as can be attested by the editors who’ve had to rearrange some of my pieces to make the story flow better.

News in general cares about being independent, about journalists who figure out the story and tell the truth regardless of what the people in power are saying. Science news is strange because, if a scientist gets covered at all, it’s almost always positive. Aside from the occasional scandal or replication crisis, science news tends to portray scientific developments as valuable, “good news” rather than “bad news”. If you’re a politician or a company, hearing from a journalist might make you worry. If you say the wrong thing, you might come off badly. If you’re a scientist, your biggest worry is that a journalist might twist your words into a falsehood that makes your work sound too good. On the other hand, a journalist who regularly publishes negative things about scientists would probably have a hard time finding scientists to talk to! There are basic journalistic ethics questions here that one probably learns about at journalism school and we who sneak in with no training have to learn another way.

These are the flavors I’ve tasted so far: novelty and narrative vs. education, positivity vs. accuracy. I’ll doubtless see more over the years, and go from someone who kind of knows what they’re doing to someone who can mentor others. With that in mind, I should get to writing!

Ways Freelance Journalism Is Different From Academic Writing

2 Replies

A while back, I was surprised when I saw the writer of a well-researched webcomic assume that academics are paid for their articles. I ended up writing a post explaining how academic publishing actually works.

Now that I’m out of academia, I’m noticing some confusion on the other side. I’m doing freelance journalism, and the academics I talk to tend to have some common misunderstandings. So academics, this post is for you: a FAQ of questions I’ve been asked about freelance journalism. Freelance journalism is more varied than academia, and I’ve only been doing it a little while, so all of my answers will be limited to my experience.

Q: What happens first? Do they ask you to write something? Do you write an article and send it to them?

Academics are used to writing an article, then sending it to a journal, which sends it out to reviewers to decide whether to accept it. In freelance journalism in my experience, you almost never write an article before it’s accepted. (I can think of one exception I’ve run into, and that was for an opinion piece.)

Sometimes, an editor reaches out to a freelancer and asks them to take on an assignment to write a particular sort of article. This happens more freelancers that have been working with particular editors for a long time. I’m new to this, so the majority of the time I have to “pitch”. That means I email an editor describing the kind of piece I want to write. I give a short description of the topic and why it’s interesting. If the editor is interested, they’ll ask some follow-up questions, then tell me what they want me to focus on, how long the piece should be, and how much they’ll pay me. (The last two are related, many places pay by the word.) After that, I can write a draft.

Q: Wait, you’re paid by the word? Then why not make your articles super long, like Victor Hugo?

I’m paid per word assigned, not per word in the finished piece. The piece doesn’t have to strictly stick to the word limit, but it should be roughly the right size, and I work with the editor to try to get it there. In practice, places seem to have a few standard size ranges and internal terminology for what they are (“blog”, “essay”, “short news”, “feature”). These aren’t always the same as the categories readers see online. Some places have a web page listing these categories for prospective freelancers, but many don’t, so you have to either infer them from the lengths of articles online or learn them over time from the editors.

Q: Why didn’t you mention this important person or idea?

Because pieces pay more by the word, it’s easier as a freelancer to sell shorter pieces than longer ones. For science news, favoring shorter pieces also makes some pedagogical sense. People usually take away only a few key messages from a piece, if you try to pack in too much you run a serious risk of losing people. After I’ve submitted a draft, I work with the editor to polish it, and usually that means cutting off side-stories and “by-the-ways” to make the key points as vivid as possible.

Q: Do you do those cool illustrations?

Academia has a big focus on individual merit. The expectation is that when you write something, you do almost all of the work yourself, to the extent that more programming-heavy fields like physics and math do their own typesetting.

Industry, including journalism, is more comfortable delegating. Places will generally have someone on-staff to handle illustrations. I suggest diagrams that could be helpful to the piece and do a sketch of what they could look like, but it’s someone else’s job to turn that into nice readable graphic design.

Q: Why is the title like that? Why doesn’t that sound like you?

Editors in journalistic outlets are much more involved than in academic journals. Editors won’t just suggest edits, they’ll change wording directly and even input full sentences of their own. The title and subtitle of a piece in particular can change a lot (in part because they impact SEO), and in some places these can be changed by the editor quite late in the process. I’ve had a few pieces whose title changed after I’d signed off on them, or even after they first appeared.

Q: Are your pieces peer-reviewed?

The news doesn’t have peer review, no. Some places, like Quanta Magazine, do fact-checking. Quanta pays independent fact-checkers for longer pieces, while for shorter pieces it’s the writer’s job to verify key facts, confirming dates and the accuracy of quotes.

Q: Can you show me the piece before it’s published, so I can check it?

That’s almost never an option. Journalists tend to have strict rules about showing a piece before it’s published, related to more political areas where they want to preserve the ability to surprise wrongdoers and the independence to find their own opinions. Science news seems like it shouldn’t require this kind of thing as much, it’s not like we normally write hit pieces. But we’re not publicists either.

In a few cases, I’ve had people who were worried about something being conveyed incorrectly, or misleadingly. For those, I offer to do more in the fact-checking stage. I can sometimes show you quotes or paraphrase how I’m describing something, to check whether I’m getting something wrong. But under no circumstances can I show you the full text.

Q: What can I do to make it more likely I’ll get quoted?

Pieces are short, and written for a general, if educated, audience. Long quotes are harder to use because they eat into word count, and quotes with technical terms are harder to use because we try to limit the number of terms we ask the reader to remember. Quotes that mention a lot of concepts can be harder to find a place for, too: concepts are introduced gradually over the piece, so a quote that mentions almost everything that comes up will only make sense to the reader at the very end.

In a science news piece, quotes can serve a couple different roles. They can give authority, an expert’s judgement confirming that something is important or real. They can convey excitement, letting the reader see a scientist’s emotions. And sometimes, they can give an explanation. This last only happens when the explanation is very efficient and clear. If the journalist can give a better explanation, they’re likely to use that instead.

So if you want to be quoted, keep that in mind. Try to say things that are short and don’t use a lot of technical jargon or bring in too many concepts at once. Convey judgement, which things are important and why, and convey passion, what drives you and excited you about a topic. I am allowed to edit quotes down, so I can take a piece of a longer quote that’s cleaner or cut a long list of examples from an otherwise compelling statement. I can correct grammar and get rid of filler words and obvious mistakes. But I can’t put words in your mouth, I have to work with what you actually said, and if you don’t say anything I can use then you won’t get quoted.

Government Science Funding Isn’t a Precision Tool

Leave a reply

People sometimes say there is a crisis of trust in science. In controversial subjects, from ecology to health, increasingly many people are rejecting not only mainstream ideas, but the scientists behind them.

I think part of the problem is media literacy, but not in the way you’d think. When we teach media literacy, we talk about biased sources. If a study on cigarettes is funded by the tobacco industry or a study on climate change is funded by an oil company, we tell students to take a step back and consider that the scientists might be biased.

That’s a worthwhile lesson, as far as it goes. But it naturally leads to another idea. Most scientific studies aren’t funded by companies, most studies are funded by the government. If you think the government is biased, does that mean the studies are too?

I’m going to argue here that government science funding is a very different thing than corporations funding individual studies. Governments do have an influence on scientists, and a powerful one, but that influence is diffuse and long-term. They don’t have control over the specific conclusions scientists reach.

If you picture a stereotypical corrupt scientist, you might imagine all sorts of perks. They might get extra pay from corporate consulting fees. Maybe they get invited to fancy dinners, go to corporate-sponsored conferences in exotic locations, and get gifts from the company.

Grants can’t offer any of that, because grants are filtered through a university. When a grant pays a scientist’s salary, the university pays less to compensate, instead reducing their teaching responsibilities or giving them a slightly better chance at future raises. Any dinners or conferences have to obey not only rules from the grant agency (a surprising number of grants these days can’t pay for alcohol) but from the university as well, which can set a maximum on the price of a dinner or require people to travel economy using a specific travel agency. They also have to be applied for: scientists have to write their planned travel and conference budget, and the committee evaluating grants will often ask if that budget is really necessary.

Actual corruption isn’t the only thing we teach news readers to watch out for. By funding research, companies can choose to support people who tend to reach conclusions they agree with, keep in contact through the project, then publicize the result with a team of dedicated communications staff.

Governments can’t follow up on that level of detail. Scientific work is unpredictable, and governments try to fund a wide breadth of scientific work, so they have to accept that studies will not usually go as advertised. Scientists pivot, finding new directions and reaching new opinions, and government grant agencies don’t have the interest or the staff to police them for it. They also can’t select very precisely, with committees that often only know bits and pieces about the work they’re evaluating because they have to cover so many different lines of research. And with the huge number of studies funded, the number that can be meaningfully promoted by their comparatively small communications staff is only a tiny fraction.

In practice, then, governments can’t choose what conclusions scientists come to. If a government grant agency funds a study, that doesn’t tell you very much about whether the conclusion of the study is biased.

Instead, governments have an enormous influence on the general type of research that gets done. This doesn’t work on the level of conclusions, but on the level of topics, as that’s about the most granular that grant committees can get. Grants work in a direct way, giving scientists more equipment and time to do work of a general type that the grant committees are interested in. It works in terms of incentives, not because researchers get paid more but because they get to do more, hiring more students and temporary researchers if they can brand their work in terms of the more favored type of research. And it works by influencing the future: by creating students and sustaining young researchers who don’t yet have temporary positions, and by encouraging universities to hire people more likely to get grants for their few permanent positions.

So if you’re suspicious the government is biasing science, try to zoom out a bit. Think about the tools they have at their disposal, about how they distribute funding and check up on how it’s used. The way things are set up currently, most governments don’t have detailed control over what gets done. They have to filter that control through grant committees of opinionated scientists, who have to evaluate proposals well outside of their expertise. Any control you suspect they’re using has to survive that.

Which String Theorists Are You Complaining About?

4 Replies

Do string theorists have an unfair advantage? Do they have an easier time getting hired, for example?

In one of the perennial arguments about this on Twitter, Martin Bauer posted a bar chart of faculty hires in the US by sub-field. The chart was compiled by Erich Poppitz from data in the US particle physics rumor mill, a website where people post information about who gets hired where for the US’s quite small number of permanent theoretical particle physics positions at research universities and national labs. The data covers 1994 to 2017, and shows one year, 1999, when there were more string theorists hired than all other topics put together. The years around then also had many string theorists hired, but the proportion starts falling around the mid 2000’s…around when Lee Smolin wrote a book, The Trouble With Physics, arguing that string theorists had strong-armed their way into academic dominance. After that, the percentage of string theorists falls, oscillating between a tenth and a quarter of total hires.

Judging from that, you get the feeling that string theory’s critics are treating a temporary hiring fad as if it was a permanent fact. The late 1990’s were a time of high-profile developments in string theory that excited a lot of people. Later, other hiring fads dominated, often driven by experiments: I remember when the US decided to prioritize neutrino experiments and neutrino theorists had a much easier time getting hired, and there seem to be similar pushes now with gravitational waves, quantum computing, and AI.

Thinking about the situation in this way, though, ignores what many of the critics have in mind. That’s because the “string” column on that bar chart is not necessarily what people think of when they think of string theory.

If you look at the categories on Poppitz’s bar chart, you’ll notice something odd. “String” its itself a category. Another category, “lattice”, refers to lattice QCD, a method to find the dynamics of quarks numerically. The third category, though, is a combination of three things “ph/th/cosm”.

“Cosm” here refers to cosmology, another sub-field. “Ph” and “th” though aren’t really sub-fields. Instead, they’re arXiv categories, sections of the website arXiv.org where physicists post papers before they submit them to journals. The “ph” category is used for phenomenology, the type of theoretical physics where people try to propose models of the real world and make testable predictions. The “th” category is for “formal theory”, papers where theoretical physicists study the kinds of theories they use in more generality and develop new calculation methods, with insights that over time filter into “ph” work.

“String”, on the other hand, is not an arXiv category. When string theorists write papers, they’ll put them into “th” or “ph” or another relevant category (for example “gr-qc”, for general relativity and quantum cosmology). This means that when Poppitz distinguishes “ph/th/cosm” from “string”, he’s being subjective, using his own judgement to decide who counts as a string theorist.

So who counts as a string theorist? The simplest thing to do would be to check if their work uses strings. Failing that, they could use other tools of string theory and its close relatives, like Calabi-Yau manifolds, M-branes, and holography.

That might be what Poppitz was doing, but if he was, he was probably missing a lot of the people critics of string theory complain about. He even misses many people who describe themselves as string theorists. In an old post of mine I go through the talks at Strings, string theory’s big yearly conference, giving them finer-grained categories. The majority don’t use anything uniquely stringy.

Instead, I think critics of string theory have two kinds of things in mind.

First, most of the people who made their reputations on string theory are still in academia, and still widely respected. Some of them still work on string theory topics, but many now work on other things. Because they’re still widely respected, their interests have a substantial influence on the field. When one of them starts looking at connections between theories of two-dimensional materials, you get a whole afternoon of talks at Strings about theories of two-dimensional materials. Working on those topics probably makes it a bit easier to get a job, but also, many of the people working on them are students of these highly respected people, who just because of that have an easier time getting a job. If you’re a critic of string theory who thinks the founders of the field led physics astray, then you probably think they’re still leading physics astray even if they aren’t currently working on string theory.

Second, for many other people in physics, string theorists are their colleagues and friends. They’ll make fun of trends that seem overhyped and under-thought, like research on the black hole information paradox or the swampland, or hopes that a slightly tweaked version of supersymmetry will show up soon at the LHC. But they’ll happily use ideas developed in string theory when they prove handy, using supersymmetric theories to test new calculation techniques, string theory’s extra dimensions to inspire and ground new ideas for dark matter, or the math of strings themselves as interesting shortcuts to particle physics calculations. String theory is available as reference to these people in a way that other quantum gravity proposals aren’t. That’s partly due to familiarity and shared language (I remember a talk at Perimeter where string theorists wanted to learn from practitioners from another area and the discussion got bogged down by how they were using the word “dimension”), but partly due to skepticism of the various alternate approaches. Most people have some idea in their heads of deep problems with various proposals: screwing up relativity, making nonsense out of quantum mechanics, or over-interpreting on limited evidence. The most commonly believed criticisms are usually wrong, with objections long-known to practitioners of the alternate approaches, and so those people tend to think they’re being treated unfairly. But the wrong criticisms are often simplified versions of correct criticisms, passed down by the few people who dig deeply into these topics, criticisms that the alternative approaches don’t have good answers to.

The end result is that while string theory itself isn’t dominant, a sort of “string friendliness” is. Most of the jobs aren’t going to string theorists in the literal sense. But the academic world string theorists created keeps turning. People still respect string theorists and the research directions they find interesting, and people are still happy to collaborate and discuss with string theorists. For research communities people are more skeptical of, it must feel very isolating, like the world is still being run by their opponents. But this isn’t the kind of hegemony that can be solved by a revolution. Thinking that string theory is a failed research program, and people focused on it should have a harder time getting hired, is one thing. Thinking that everyone who respects at least one former string theorist should have a harder time getting hired is a very different goal. And if what you’re complaining about is “string friendliness”, not actual string theorists, then that’s what you’re asking for.

A Tale of Two Experiments

2 Replies

Before I begin, two small announcements:

First: I am now on bluesky! Instead of having a separate link in the top menu for each social media account, I’ve changed the format so now there are social media buttons in the right-hand sidebar, right under the “Follow” button. Currently, they cover tumblr, twitter, and bluesky, but there may be more in future.

Second, I’ve put a bit more technical advice on my “Open Source Grant Proposal” post, so people interested in proposing similar research can have some ideas about how best to pitch it.

Now, on to the post:

Gravitational wave telescopes are possibly the most exciting research program in physics right now. Big, expensive machines with more on the way in the coming decades, gravitational wave telescopes need both precise theoretical predictions and high-quality data analysis. For some, gravitational wave telescopes have the potential to reveal genuinely new physics, to probe deviations from general relativity that might be related to phenomena like dark matter, though so far no such deviations have been conclusively observed. In the meantime, they’re teaching us new consequences of known physics. For example, the unusual population of black holes observed by LIGO has motivated those who model star clusters to consider processes in which the motion of three stars or black holes is related to each other, discovering that these processes are more important than expected.

Particle colliders are probably still exciting to the general public, but for many there is a growing sense of fatigue and disillusionment. Current machines like the LHC are big and expensive, and proposed future colliders would be even costlier and take decades to come online, in addition to requiring a huge amount of effort from the community in terms of precise theoretical predictions and data analysis. Some argue that colliders still might uncover genuinely new physics, deviations from the standard model that might explain phenomena like dark matter, but as no such deviations have yet been conclusively observed people are increasingly skeptical. In the meantime, most people working on collider physics are focused on learning new consequences of known physics. For example, by comparing observed results with theoretical approximations, people have found that certain high-energy processes usually left out of calculations are actually needed to get a good agreement with the data, showing that these processes are more important than expected.

…ok, you see what I did there, right? Was that fair?

There are a few key differences, with implications to keep in mind:

First, collider physics is significantly more expensive than gravitational wave physics. LIGO took about $300 million to build and spends about $50 million a year. The LHC took about $5 billion to build and costs $1 billion a year to run. That cost still puts both well below several other government expenses that you probably consider frivolous (please don’t start arguing about which ones in the comments!), but it does mean collider physics demands a bit of a stronger argument.

Second, the theoretical motivation to expect new fundamental physics out of LIGO is generally considered much weaker than for colliders. A large part of the theoretical physics community thought that they had a good argument why they should see something new at the LHC. In contrast, most theorists have been skeptical of the kinds of modified gravity theories that have dramatic enough effects that one could measure them with gravitational wave telescopes, with many of these theories having other pathologies or inconsistencies that made people wary.

Third, the general public finds astrophysics cooler than particle physics. Somehow, telling people “pairs of black holes collide more often than we thought because sometimes a third star in the neighborhood nudges them together” gets people much more excited than “pairs of quarks collide more often than we thought because we need to re-sum large logarithms differently”, even though I don’t think there’s a real “principled” difference between them. Neither reveals new laws of nature, both are upgrades to our ability to model how real physical objects behave, neither is useful to know for anybody living on Earth in the present day.

With all this in mind, my advice to gravitational wave physicists is to try, as much as possible, not to lean on stories about dark matter and modified gravity. You might learn something, and it’s worth occasionally mentioning that. But if you don’t, you run a serious risk of disappointing people. And you have such a big PR advantage if you just lean on new consequences of bog standard GR, that those guys really should get the bulk of the news coverage if you want to keep the public on your side.

The “That’s Neat” Level

Leave a reply

Everything we do, we do for someone.

The simplest things we do for ourselves. We grab that chocolate bar on the table and eat it, and it makes us happier.

Unless the chocolate bar is homemade, we probably paid money for it. We do other things, working for a living, to get the money to get those chocolate bars for ourselves.

(We also get chocolate bars for our loved ones, or for people we care about. Whether this is not in a sense also getting a chocolate bar for yourself is left as an exercise to the reader.)

What we do for the money, in turn, is driven by what would make someone else happier. Sometimes this is direct: you cut someone’s hair, they enjoy the breeze, they pay you, you enjoy the chocolate.

Other times, this gets mediated. You work in HR at a haircut chain. The shareholders want more money, to buy things like chocolate bars, so they vote for a board who wants to do what the shareholders want so as not to be in breach of contract and get fewer chocolate bars, so the board tells you to do things they believe will achieve that, and you do them because that’s how you get your chocolate bars. Every so often, the shareholders take a look at how many chocolate bars they can afford and adjust.

Compared to all this, academia is weirdly un-mediated.

It gets the closest to this model with students. Students want to learn certain things because they will allow them to provide other people with better services in future, which they can use to buy chocolate bars, and other things for the sheer pleasure, a neat experience almost comparable to a chocolate bar. People running universities want more money from students so they can spend it on things like giant statues of chocolate bars, so they instruct people working in the university to teach more of the things students want. (Typically in a very indirect way, for example funding a department in the US based on number of majors rather than number of students.)

But there’s a big chunk of academics whose performance is mostly judged not by their teaching, but by their research. They are paid salaries by departments based on the past quality of their research, or paid out of grants awarded based on the expected future quality of their research. (Or to combine them, paid salaries by departments based on the expected size of their grants.)

And in principle, that introduces many layers of mediation. The research universities and grant agencies are funded by governments, which pool money together in the expectation that someday by doing so they will bring about a world where more people can eat chocolate bars.

But the potential to bring about a world of increased chocolate bars isn’t like maximizing shareholder value. Nobody can check, one year later, how much closer you are to the science-fueled chocolate bar utopia.

And so in practice, in science, people fund you because they think what you’re doing is neat. Because it scratches the chocolate-bar-shaped hole in their brains. They might have some narrative about how your work could lead to the chocolate bar utopia the government is asking for, but it’s not like they’re calculating the expected distribution of chocolate bars if they fund your project versus another. You have to convince a human being, not that you are doing something instrumentally and measurably useful…but that you are doing something cool.

And that makes us very weird people! Halfway between haircuts and HR, selling a chocolate bar that promises to be something more.

Replacing Space-Time With the Space in Your Eyes

5 Replies

Nima Arkani-Hamed thinks space-time is doomed.

That doesn’t mean he thinks it’s about to be destroyed by a supervillain. Rather, Nima, like many physicists, thinks that space and time are just approximations to a deeper reality. In order to make sense of gravity in a quantum world, seemingly fundamental ideas, like that particles move through particular places at particular times, will probably need to become more flexible.

But while most people who think space-time is doomed research quantum gravity, Nima’s path is different. Nima has been studying scattering amplitudes, formulas used by particle physicists to predict how likely particles are to collide in particular ways. He has been trying to find ways to calculate these scattering amplitudes without referring directly to particles traveling through space and time. In the long run, the hope is that knowing how to do these calculations will help suggest new theories beyond particle physics, theories that can’t be described with space and time at all.

Ten years ago, Nima figured out how to do this in a particular theory, one that doesn’t describe the real world. For that theory he was able to find a new picture of how to calculate scattering amplitudes based on a combinatorical, geometric space with no reference to particles traveling through space-time. He gave this space the catchy name “the amplituhedron“. In the years since, he found a few other “hedra” describing different theories.

Now, he’s got a new approach. The new approach doesn’t have the same kind of catchy name: people sometimes call it surfaceology, or curve integral formalism. Like the amplituhedron, it involves concepts from combinatorics and geometry. It isn’t quite as “pure” as the amplituhedron: it uses a bit more from ordinary particle physics, and while it avoids specific paths in space-time it does care about the shape of those paths. Still, it has one big advantage: unlike the amplituhedron, Nima’s new approach looks like it can work for at least a few of the theories that actually describe the real world.

The amplituhedron was mysterious. Instead of space and time, it described the world in terms of a geometric space whose meaning was unclear. Nima’s new approach also describes the world in terms of a geometric space, but this space’s meaning is a lot more clear.

The space is called “kinematic space”. That probably still sounds mysterious. “Kinematic” in physics refers to motion. In the beginning of a physics class when you study velocity and acceleration before you’ve introduced a single force, you’re studying kinematics. In particle physics, kinematic refers to the motion of the particles you detect. If you see an electron going up and to the right at a tenth the speed of light, those are its kinematics.

Kinematic space, then, is the space of observations. By saying that his approach is based on ideas in kinematic space, what Nima is saying is that it describes colliding particles not based on what they might be doing before they’re detected, but on mathematics that asks questions only about facts about the particles that can be observed.

(For the experts: this isn’t quite true, because he still needs a concept of loop momenta. He’s getting the actual integrands from his approach, rather than the dual definition he got from the amplituhedron. But he does still have to integrate one way or another.)

Quantum mechanics famously has many interpretations. In my experience, Nima’s favorite interpretation is the one known as “shut up and calculate”. Instead of arguing about the nature of an indeterminately philosophical “real world”, Nima thinks quantum physics is a tool to calculate things people can observe in experiments, and that’s the part we should care about.

From a practical perspective, I agree with him. And I think if you have this perspective, then ultimately, kinematic space is where your theories have to live. Kinematic space is nothing more or less than the space of observations, the space defined by where things land in your detectors, or if you’re a human and not a collider, in your eyes. If you want to strip away all the speculation about the nature of reality, this is all that is left over. Any theory, of any reality, will have to be described in this way. So if you think reality might need a totally new weird theory, it makes sense to approach things like Nima does, and start with the one thing that will always remain: observations.