Tag Archives: PublicPerception

Why We Are Leaving France: The Misadventures of a Trailing Spouse

5 Replies

In last week’s announcement, I mentioned I’d have a few follow-up posts. This week is a guest post. I want to let my wife tell her side of the story, to talk publicly about what she’s experienced over the last six months.

If you are a frequent reader of this blog, you probably know that 4gravitons relocated last year to France, following a long-coveted permanent academic position at the Institute for Theoretical Physics (IPhT) of CEA Paris-Saclay. Along with 4gravitons, I also moved to France as a trailing spouse. This is not an unusual situation, academic spouses agreeing to leave behind their friends and career to allow the academic in the relationship to develop their career. I had even set some conditions that I thought were necessary for me to successfully integrate elsewhere (access to employment, an intelligible healthcare system, good public transit), a list of desirable traits (in or near a medium-to-large city, prior knowledge of the language, walkable neighborhood),  and some places I was unwilling to move to. When the offer for a position in France arrived, we thought it was almost ideal:

  • France is an EU country, which would give me direct access to employment (by the EU directive on Freedom of Movement),
  • France is also somewhat renowned for having a sensible working healthcare system, even though in recent times it has been stretched thin,
  • IPhT is less than an hour away from Paris, and
  • Both 4gravitons and I already had a B1/B2 level in French (you can find the CEFR level descriptors here). 

However, we have decided to leave France only 6 months after arriving. What happened?

I wanted to put one of Escher’s labyrinths here, but they’re still under copyright.

The quest for a Carte de Séjour (and access to the labor market) 

As I wrote earlier, being able to work was a necessary condition for me to relocate. I work in education, which often requires a good deal of paperwork (since countries correctly want to make sure their young people are in a safe, nurturing environment). I had heard that France was facing a shortage of teachers, so I was hopeful about my prospects. I applied for one position which seemed like a perfect fit and got through a couple of interviews before the legal right to work issues started. EU law states that EU spouses have access to employment in EU countries on arrival (they should get the same rights as their European partners); however, in France employers are liable if they hire someone illegally so they are extremely cautious when hiring foreigners. In practice, this means employers will NOT hire EU spouses if they do not have a document from the French authorities explicitly stating their right to work. Since it is not possible to start the process to get such a document before arriving in France, finding work would have to wait.

One day after arriving in France, still hoping things would go smoothly and we could build a good life there, I collected all the document required by EU law to apply for a Carte de Séjour (residence card), went to the neighborhood Photomaton to have compliant photos taken, and uploaded the documents and photo-ID to the website of ANEF, the agency that handles the digital side of French immigration. EU law grants EU spouses 3 months to apply for the Carte de Séjour, but I wanted to have the process started as soon as possible so I could work. Naïvely, I thought I would be issued a document stating that I had applied for a Carte de Séjour under EU law and thus was allowed employment, the way it works in other EU countries. This was not the case. I was, instead, given a letter saying that I had applied for a Carte de Séjour, and that the document did not grant access to either employment or social benefits (such as healthcare, more on this below). To make matters worse, our sous-préfécture (the part of local government that handles the application) listed average waiting times for first demands at 161 days.

Well, at least the process was started and, in my head, the long wait times would likely only apply to complicated cases. I was arriving as an EU spouse, after having lived in another EU country (since 4gravitons had been working at the Niels Bohr Institute, in Denmark) for quite some time. It would likely be a short wait. It was just a matter of waiting for an e-mail when the process actually started and making sure to submit further documentation quickly, if it was deemed necessary.

A couple of months later, the email had not yet arrived (and work opportunities kept vanishing due to lack of papers), so we started asking for confirmation that my documents had indeed been received by our local sous-préfécture. We wrote to ANEF (“due to a technical error, we cannot answer your question”), called the sous-préfécture (“nobody here can answer your question”), support organizations (“You have the wrong visa! Can you go to another country and apply for a long-term visa from there?”), and so on. This went on for a long time despite local contacts reaching out to our sous-préfécture, our préfect, and other connections to try and accelerate the process. I finally received the e-mail starting the process (requesting some more documents, as well as some I had already sent) about 5 months after submitting the application (it took exactly 148  days, I counted). At this point, I was also granted a new letter attesting that I was legally in France (my short-term Schengen visa having expired much earlier) and that explicitly did not grant access to either employment (without a work authorization) or social benefits.

Healthcare for the undocumented

To make things even more complicated, I started having unusual symptoms a few weeks after our move to France. In the worst instance, the symptoms were worrying enough that an ambulance was sent to take me to the emergency room for an MRI (luckily, it was not serious). Note that I did not have a health card, so the ambulance had to be paid in cash before they would move me, the hospital sent a bill for the MRI by mail some weeks later, and the government sent a bill for the emergency care four months later. Luckily, we bought private insurance before moving, since we have relocated before and know that sometimes it takes a little time before one is signed up with the local healthcare institutions. Unluckily, hospitals here will not deal with insurance companies directly so we had to pay and file for reimbursement (this involves papers called feuille de soins, and the ambulance did not give us one, so no reimbursement for that). The following 3 or 4 months involved many specialist visits, lots of labs, lots of feuilles de soins… and very limited improvement on my symptoms. Since we could not have a family doctor (this requires a health card and an infinite amount of patience given that most general doctors have no space for new patients), appointments often consisted of the same questions, more referrals, confusion over a patient arriving with a giant file of previous documents, and no answers. At the end, the only answer proposed was that it may all be a physical expression of stress and anxiety.

The aforementioned situation was adding significant complications to our lives so, France being a country with socialized medicine, we started the process required to register me for a Carte Vitale (this is the name of the French health card). Residents in France aren’t automatically covered, but they are either registered for coverage by their employer or register themselves as dependents of someone with coverage. We reached out to CPAM (the French agency that controls socialized health insurance) and were given the forms to apply for coverage and a list of documents, which included a valid residency document (long-term visa or Carte de Séjour). EU spouses are not required to get a long-term visa (the French embassy explicitly told us I should get a short-term visa, and only because our residency cards for Denmark were expiring around the time of relocation) and the Carte de Séjour process was still ongoing, so we had a problem. Regardless, we made a file, and included our marriage certificate, the letter stating I had applied for a residence card, and proof of residency and work in France for 4gravitons, which shows the legality of my residence in France under EU regulations. The instructions are to send the file by mail to the corresponding CPAM office, which we tried to do but the postal office lost the letter. We eventually got an appointment to hand the documents in person and were told directly that I had the wrong visa and my request would likely be denied due to the lack of Carte de Séjour. We repeated the rules established by the EU (lack of a Carte de Séjour CANNOT be used to justify the denial of rights to EU families) and gave them the dossier. A month or so later, a letter came in the mail stating that my request had been denied because I had not been a resident for three months (at that point, I had been a resident for 2 and a half months so that was not much of an issue); a few weeks later, once my three-month visa had expired, a different letter arrived changing the reason for refusal to the lack of legal resident status.

Everyone ♥️ Paris, France

As you may well imagine, I was not feeling much appreciation for the City of Lights given our difficulties settling in and the isolation imposed by my status (legal resident but undocumented). Yet, whenever I have tried to explain why I was anxious, frustrated, or depressed, I encountered very little empathy or understanding. It often felt as if, by describing my experiences in the city, I was criticizing a core belief for people: that Paris is a magical place where one eats wonderful food and strolls about beautiful places. 

In sensing my unhappiness in (or near) Paris, I was often advised to go spend more time in the museums (the ones I am most interested in are quite expensive and permanently crowded) or walking around the nice areas of Paris (but beware not to take a wrong turn, for it is easy to find oneself in a less-than-nice place). This continued even if I explained that I have been to Paris, have seen the beautiful museums and manicured parks, and I never much enjoyed it. 

I moved here knowing that Paris was not a city I loved, but expecting it would provide access to entertainment (art, theater, gaming, etc) and to a variety of other resources (like materials for artwork or ingredients for my traditional foods). I was quite unhappy when the reliability of the RER-B became a problem: we ended up defaulting to scheduling almost two hours for any Paris trip to ensure we would arrive on time. Despite the extended time, there were occasions when we almost missed a meeting time due to train delays and cancellations. In the end, access to all the nice things in Paris was limited by logistics.

An unintegrated immigrant

Until this move, I thought that integration into developed countries was mostly a matter of individual effort: learn the language, find employment and connections to the local community, and understand that things are different than in your previous home. I can no longer hold this belief. I tried, as much as I could, to interact with our local community. I took any opportunity to speak French, and often was made to feel dumb for not finding the right terms; an ophthalmologist once welcomed me by saying “Oh, you’re the patient who does not speak French” in French (try describing different kinds of eye pain in a foreign language). I signed-up for more French lessons which seemed to focus more on local slang than on useful words (my vocabulary needs more help than my grammar for French). I also joined some art lessons and a local vocal ensemble, where I met some lovely people but had little chance of creating more in-depth connections. 

Finally, after months of trying and failing to integrate, Newtonmas came. The few friends we had here all left to visit their families. I still had no papers and could not leave France. On top of this, there was an unexpected death in my family in the lead-up to the holidays. I found myself, almost 5 months after arriving, unemployed (and with no access to the job market), uninsured (and paying for healthcare and a lot of counseling out of pocket), undocumented (at this point, with no valid visa and no way to prove I was in France legally), and grieving alone in a foreign country. We knew that I could not stay here. And thus, we cannot stay here.

Integration requires effort from the immigrant, but it also requires effort from the country. It requires a country willing to give basic access to the requirements of life, to let immigrants step into the public sphere under fair conditions, and to do so consistently and reliably. France, in its current state, cannot do this. I hope it can improve, but I am not required to wait here for it. We’ll be elsewhere, integrating into another country and contributing to their community instead.

LHC Black Hole Reassurance: The Professional Version

Leave a reply

A while back I wrote a post trying to reassure you that the Large Hadron Collider cannot create a black hole that could destroy the Earth. If you’re the kind of person who is worried about this kind of thing, you’ve probably heard a variety of arguments: that it hasn’t happened yet, despite the LHC running for quite some time, that it didn’t happen before the LHC with cosmic rays of comparable energy, and that a black hole that small would quickly decay due to Hawking radiation. I thought it would be nice to give a different sort of argument, a back-of-the-envelope calculation you can try out yourself, showing that even if a black hole was produced using all of the LHC’s energy and fell directly into the center of the Earth, and even if Hawking radiation didn’t exist, it would still take longer than the lifetime of the universe to cause any detectable damage. Modeling the black hole as falling through the Earth and just slurping up everything that falls into its event horizon, it wouldn’t even double in size before the stars burn out.

That calculation was extremely simple by physics standards. As it turns out, it was too simple. A friend of mine started thinking harder about the problem, and dug up this paper from 2008: Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes.

Before the LHC even turned on, the experts were hard at work studying precisely this question. The paper has two authors, Steve Giddings and Michelangelo Mangano. Giddings is an expert on the problem of quantum gravity, while Mangano is an expert on LHC physics, so the two are exactly the dream team you’d ask for to answer this question. Like me, they pretend that black holes don’t decay due to Hawking radiation, and pretend that one falls to straight from the LHC to the center of the Earth, for the most pessimistic possible scenario.

Unlike me, but like my friend, they point out that the Earth is not actually a uniform sphere of matter. It’s made up of particles: quarks arranged into nucleons arranged into nuclei arranged into atoms. And a black hole that hits a nucleus will probably not just slurp up an event horizon-sized chunk of the nucleus: it will slurp up the whole nucleus.

This in turn means that the black hole starts out growing much more fast. Eventually, it slows down again: once it’s bigger than an atom, it starts gobbling up atoms a few at a time until eventually it is back to slurping up a cylinder of the Earth’s material as it passes through.

But an atom-sized black hole will grow faster than an LHC-energy-sized black hole. How much faster is estimated in the Giddings and Mangano paper, and it depends on the number of dimensions. For eight dimensions, we’re safe. For fewer, they need new arguments.

Wait a minute, you might ask, aren’t there only four dimensions? Is this some string theory nonsense?

Kind of, yes. In order for the LHC to produce black holes, gravity would need to have a much stronger effect than we expect on subatomic particles. That requires something weird, and the most plausible such weirdness people considered at the time were extra dimensions. With extra dimensions of the right size, the LHC might have produced black holes. It’s that kind of scenario that Giddings and Mangano are checking: they don’t know of a plausible way for black holes to be produced at the LHC if there are just four dimensions.

For fewer than eight dimensions, though, they have a problem: the back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests black holes could actually grow fast enough to cause real damage. Here, they fall back on the other type of argument: if this could happen, would it have happened already? They argue that, if the LHC could produce black holes in this way, then cosmic rays could produce black holes when they hit super-dense astronomical objects, such as white dwarfs and neutron stars. Those black holes would eat up the white dwarfs and neutron stars, in the same way one might be worried they could eat up the Earth. But we can observe that white dwarfs and neutron stars do in fact exist, and typically live much longer than they would if they were constantly being eaten by miniature black holes. So we can conclude that any black holes like this don’t exist, and we’re safe.

If you’ve got a smattering of physics knowledge, I encourage you to read through the paper. They consider a lot of different scenarios, much more than I can summarize in a post. I don’t know if you’ll find it reassuring, since they may not cover whatever you happen to be worried about. But it’s a lot of fun seeing how the experts handle the problem.

Newtonmas Pageants

Leave a reply

Newtonmas: because if you’re going to celebrate someone supposedly born on December 25, you might as well pick someone whose actual birthday was within two weeks of that.

My past Newtonmas posts have tended to be about gifts, which is a pretty easy theme. But Christmas, for some, isn’t just about Santa Claus delivering gifts, but about someone’s birth. Children put on plays acting out different characters. In Mexico, they include little devils, who try to tempt the shepherds away from visiting Jesus.

Could we do this kind of thing for Newtonmas? A Newtonmas Pageant?

The miraculous child

Historians do know a bit about Newton’s birth. His father (also named Isaac Newton) died two months before he was born. Newton was born prematurely, his mother apparently claimed he could fit inside a quart mug.

The mug may be surprising (it comes in quarts?), but there isn’t really enough material for a proper story here. That said, it would be kind of beside the point if there were. If we’re celebrating science, maybe the story of one particular child is not the story we should be telling.

Instead, we can tell stories about scientific ideas. These often have quite dramatic stories. Instead of running from inn to inn looking for rooms, scientists run from journal to journal trying to publish. Instead of frankincense, myrrh, and gold, there are Nobel prizes. Instead of devils tempting the shepherds away, you have tempting but unproductive ideas. For example, Newton battled ideas from Descartes and Liebniz that suggested gravity could be caused by a vortex of fluid. The idea was popular because it was mechanical-sounding: no invisible force of gravity needed. But it didn’t work, and Newton spent half of the Principia where he wrote down his new science building a theory of fluids so he could say it didn’t work.

So for this Newtonmas, tell the story of a scientific idea: one that had a difficult birth but that, eventually brought pilgrims and gifts from miles around.

Merry Newtonmas, everyone!

If That Measures the Quantum Vacuum, Anything Does

8 Replies

Sabine Hossenfelder has gradually transitioned from critical written content about physics to YouTube videos, mostly short science news clips with the occasional longer piece. Luckily for us in the unable-to-listen-to-podcasts demographic, the transcripts of these videos are occasionally published on her organization’s Substack.

Unluckily, it feels like the short news format is leading to some lazy metaphors. There are stories science journalists sometimes tell because they’re easy and familiar, even if they don’t really make sense. Scientists often tell them too, for the same reason. But the more careful voices avoid them.

Hossenfelder has been that careful before, but one of her recent pieces falls short. The piece is titled “This Experiment Will Measure Nothing, But Very Precisely”.

The “nothing” in the title is the oft-mythologized quantum vacuum. The story goes that in quantum theory, empty space isn’t really empty. It’s full of “virtual” particles, that pop in and out of existence, jostling things around.

This…is not a good way to think about it. Really, it’s not. If you want to understand what’s going on physically, it’s best to think about measurements, and measurements involve particles: you can’t measure anything in pure empty space, you don’t have anything to measure with. Instead, every story you can tell about the “quantum vacuum” and virtual particles, you can tell about interactions between particles that actually exist.

(That post I link above, by the way, was partially inspired by a more careful post by Hossenfelder. She does know this stuff. She just doesn’t always use it.)

Let me tell the story Hossenfelder’s piece is telling, in a less silly way:

In the earliest physics classes, you learn that light does not affect other light. Shine two flashlight beams across each other, and they’ll pass right through. You can trace the rays of each source, independently, keeping track of how they travel and bounce around the room.

In quantum theory, that’s not quite true. Light can interact with light, through subtle quantum effects. This effect is tiny, so tiny it hasn’t been measured before. But with ingenious tricks involving tuning three different lasers in exactly the right way, a team of physicists in Dresden has figured out how it could be done.

And see, that’s already cool, right? It’s cool when people figure out how to see things that have never been seen before, full stop.

But the way Hossenfelder presents it, the cool thing about this is that they are “measuring nothing”. That they’re measuring “the quantum vacuum”, really precisely.

And I mean, you can say that, I guess. But it’s equally true of every subtle quantum effect.

In classical physics, electrons should have a very specific behavior in a magnetic field, called their magnetic moment. Quantum theory changes this: electrons have a slightly different magnetic moment, an anomalous magnetic moment. And people have measured this subtle effect: it’s famously the most precisely confirmed prediction in all of science.

That effect can equally well be described as an effect of the quantum vacuum. You can draw the same pictures, if you really want to, with virtual particles popping in and out of the vacuum. One effect (light bouncing off light) doesn’t exist at all in classical physics, while the other (electrons moving in a magnetic field) exists, but is subtly different. But both, in exactly the same sense, are “measurements of nothing”.

So if you really want to stick on the idea that, whenever you measure any subtle quantum effect, you measure “the quantum vacuum”…then we’re already doing that, all the time. Using it to popularize some stuff (say, this experiment) and not other stuff (the LHC is also measuring the quantum vacuum) is just inconsistent.

Better, in my view, to skip the silly talk about nothing. Talk about what we actually measure. It’s cool enough that way.

What’s in a Subfield?

Leave a reply

A while back, someone asked me what my subfield, amplitudeology, is really about. I wrote an answer to that here, a short-term and long-term perspective that line up with the stories we often tell about the field. I talked about how we try to figure out ways to calculate probabilities faster, first for understanding the output of particle colliders like the LHC, then more recently for gravitational wave telescopes. I talked about how the philosophy we use for that carries us farther, how focusing on the minimal information we need to make a prediction gives us hope that we can generalize and even propose totally new theories.

The world doesn’t follow stories, though, not quite so neatly. Try to define something as simple as the word “game” and you run into trouble. Some games have a winner and a loser, some games everyone is on one team, and some games don’t have winners or losers at all. Games can involve physical exercise, computers, boards and dice, or just people telling stories. They can be played for fun, or for money, silly or deadly serious. Most have rules, but some don’t even have that. Instead, games are linked by history: a series of resemblances, people saying that “this” is a game because it’s kind of like “that”.

A subfield isn’t just a word, it’s a group of people. So subfields aren’t defined just by resemblance. Instead, they’re defined by practicality.

To ask what amplitudeology is really about, think about why you might want to call yourself an amplitudeologist. It could be a question of goals, certainly: you might care a lot about making better predictions for the LHC, or you could have some other grand story in mind about how amplitudes will save the world. Instead, though, it could be a matter of training: you learned certain methods, certain mathematics, a certain perspective, and now you apply it to your research, even if it goes further afield from what was considered “amplitudeology” before. It could even be a matter of community, joining with others who you think do cool stuff, even if you don’t share exactly the same goals or the same methods.

Calling yourself an amplitudeologist means you go to their conferences and listen to their talks, means you look to them to collaborate and pay attention to their papers. Those kinds of things define a subfield: not some grand mission statement, but practical questions of interest, what people work on and know and where they’re going with that. Instead of one story, like every other word, amplitudeology has a practical meaning that shifts and changes with time. That’s the way subfields should be: useful to the people who practice them.

What Referees Are For

2 Replies

This week, we had a colloquium talk by the managing editor of the Open Journal of Astrophysics.

The Open Journal of Astrophysics is an example of an arXiv overlay journal. In the old days, journals shouldered the difficult task of compiling scientists’ work into a readable format and sending them to university libraries all over the world so people could stay up to date with the work of distant colleagues. They used to charge libraries for the journals, now some instead charge authors per paper they want to publish.

Now, most of that is unnecessary due to online resources, in my field the arXiv. We prepare our papers using free tools like LaTeX, then upload them to arXiv.org, a website that makes the papers freely accessible for everybody. I don’t think I’ve ever read a paper in a physical journal in my field, and I only check journal websites if I think there’s a mistake in the arXiv version. The rest of the time, I just use the arXiv.

Still, journals do one thing the arXiv doesn’t do, and that’s refereeing. Each paper a journal receives is sent out to a few expert referees. The referees read the paper, and either reject it, accept it as-is, or demand changes before they can accept it. The journal then publishes accepted papers only.

The goal of arXiv overlay journals is to make this feature of journals also unnecessary. To do this, they notice that if every paper is already on arXiv, they don’t need to host papers or print them or typeset them. They just need to find suitable referees, and announce which papers passed.

The Open Journal of Astrophysics is a relatively small arXiv overlay journal. They operate quite cheaply, in part because the people running it can handle most of it as a minor distraction from their day job. SciPost is much bigger, and has to spend more per paper to operate. Still, it spends a lot less than journals charge authors.

We had a spirited discussion after the talk, and someone brought up an interesting point: why do we need to announce which papers passed? Can’t we just publish everything?

What, in the end, are the referees actually for? Why do we need them?

One function of referees is to check for mistakes. This is most important in mathematics, where referees might spend years making sure every step in a proof works as intended. Other fields vary, from theoretical physics (where we can check some things sometimes, but often have to make do with spotting poorly explained parts of a calculation), to fields that do experiments in the real world (where referees can look for warning signs and shady statistics, but won’t actually reproduce the experiment). A mistake found by a referee can be a boon to not just the wider scientific community, but to the author as well. Most scientists would prefer their papers to be correct, so we’re often happy to hear about a genuine mistake.

If this was all referees were for, though, then you don’t actually need to reject any papers. As a colleague of mine suggested, you just need the referees to publish their reports. Then the papers could be published along with comments from the referees, and possibly also responses from the author. Readers could see any mistakes the referees found, and judge for themselves what they show about the result.

Referees already publish their reports in SciPost much of the time, though not currently in the Open Journal of Astrophysics. Both journals still reject some papers, though. In part, that’s because they serve another function: referees are supposed to tell us which papers are “good”.

Some journals are more prestigious and fancy than others. Nature and Science are the most famous, though people in my field almost never bother to publish in either. Still, we have a hierarchy in mind, with Physical Review Letters on the high end and JHEP on the lower one. Publishing in a fancier and more prestigious journal is supposed to say something about you as a scientist, to say that your work is fancier and more prestigious. If you can’t publish in any journal at all, then your work wasn’t interesting enough to merit getting credit for it, and maybe you should have worked harder.

What does that credit buy you? Ostensibly, everything. Jobs are more likely to hire you if you’ve published in more prestigious places, and grant agencies will be more likely to give you money.

In practice, though, this depends a lot on who’s making the decisions. Some people will weigh these kinds of things highly, especially if they aren’t familiar with a candidate’s work. Others will be able to rely on other things, from numbers of papers and citations to informal assessments of a scientist’s impact. I genuinely don’t know whether the journals I published in made any impact at all when I was hired, and I’m a bit afraid to ask. I haven’t yet sat on the kind of committee that makes these decisions, so I don’t know what things look like from the other side either.

But I do know that, on a certain level, journals and publications can’t matter quite as much as we think. As I mentioned, my field doesn’t use Nature or Science, while others do. A grant agency or hiring committee comparing two scientists would have to take that into account, just as they have to take into account the thousands of authors on every single paper by the ATLAS and CMS experiments. If a field started publishing every paper regardless of quality, they’d have to adapt there too, and find a new way to judge people compatible with that.

Can we just publish everything, papers and referee letters and responses and letters and reviews? Maybe. I think there are fields where this could really work well, and fields where it would collapse into the invective of a YouTube comments section. I’m not sure where my own field sits. Theoretical particle physics is relatively small and close-knit, but it’s also cool and popular, with many strong and dumb opinions floating around. I’d like to believe we could handle it, that we could prune back the professional cruft and turn our field into a real conversation between scholars. But I don’t know.

Congratulations to Pierre Agostini, Ferenc Krausz and Anne L’Huillier!

Leave a reply

The 2023 Physics Nobel Prize was announced this week, awarded to Pierre Agostini, Ferenc Krausz and Anne L’Huillier for figuring out how to generate extremely fast (hundreds of attoseconds) pulses of light.

Some physicists try to figure out the laws of physics themselves, or the behavior of big photogenic physical systems like stars and galaxies. Those people tend to get a lot of press, but most physicists don’t do that kind of work. Instead, most physicists try to accomplish new things with old physical laws: taking light, electrons, and atoms and doing things nobody thought possible. While that may sound like engineering, the work these physicists do lies beyond the bounds of what engineers are comfortable with: there’s too much uncertainty, too little precedent, and the applications are still far away. The work is done with the goal of pushing our capabilities as far as we can, accomplishing new things and worrying later about what they’re good for.

(Somehow, they still tend to be good for something, often valuable things. Knowing things pays off!)

Anne L’Huillier began the story in 1987, shining infrared lasers through noble gases and seeing the gas emit unexpected new frequencies. As physicists built on that discovery, it went from an academic observation to a more and more useful tool, until in 2001 Pierre Agostini and Ferenc Krausz, with different techniques both based on the same knowledge, managed to produce pulses of light only a few hundred attoseconds long.

(“Atto” is one of the SI prefixes. They go milli, micro, nano, pico, femto, atto. Notice that “nano” is in the middle there: an attosecond is as much smaller than a nanosecond as a nanosecond is from an ordinary second.)

This is cool just from the point of view of “humans doing difficult things”, but it’s also useful. Electrons move on attosecond time-scales. If you can send pulses of light at attosecond speed, you’ve got a camera fast enough to capture how electrons move in real time. You can figure out how they traverse electronics, or how they slosh back and forth in biological molecules.

This year’s prize has an extra point of interest for me, as both Anne L’Huillier and Pierre Agostini did their prize-winning work at CEA Paris-Saclay, where I just started work last month. Their groups would eventually evolve into something called Attolab, I walk by their building every day on the way to lunch.

Stories Backwards and Forwards

2 Replies

You can always start with “once upon a time”…

I come up with tricks to make calculations in particle physics easier. That’s my one-sentence story, or my most common one. If I want to tell a longer story, I have more options.

Here’s one longer story:

I want to figure out what Nature is telling us. I want to take all the data we have access to that has anything to say about fundamental physics, every collider and gravitational wave telescope and ripple in the overall structure of the universe, and squeeze it as hard as I can until something comes out. I want to make sure we understand the implications of our current best theories as well as we can, to as high precision as we can, because I want to know whether they match what we see.

To do that, I am starting with a type of calculation I know how to do best. That’s both because I can make progress with it, and because it will be important for making these inferences, for testing our theories. I am following a hint in a theory that definitely does not describe the real world, one that is both simpler to work with and surprisingly complex, one that has a good track record, both for me and others, for advancing these calculations. And at the end of the day, I’ll make our ability to infer things from Nature that much better.

Here’s another:

Physicists, unknowing, proposed a kind of toy model, one often simpler to work with but not necessarily simpler to describe. Using this model, they pursued increasingly elaborate calculations, and time and time again, those calculations surprised them. The results were not random, not a disorderly mess of everything they could plausibly have gotten. Instead, they had structure, symmetries and patterns and mathematical properties that the physicists can’t seem to explain. If we can explain them, we will advance our knowledge of models and theories and ideas, geometry and combinatorics, learning more about the unexpected consequences of the rules we invent.

We can also help the physicists advance physics, of course. That’s a happy accident, but one that justifies the money and time, showing the rest of the world that understanding consequences of rules is still important and valuable.

These seem like very different stories, but they’re not so different. They change in order, physics then math or math then physics, backwards and forwards. By doing that, they change in emphasis, in where they’re putting glory and how they’re catching your attention. But at the end of the day, I’m investigating mathematical mysteries, and I’m advancing our ability to do precision physics.

(Maybe you think that my motivation must lie with one of these stories and not the other. One is “what I’m really doing”, the other is a lie made up for grant agencies.
Increasingly, I don’t think people work like that. If we are at heart stories, we’re retroactive stories. Our motivation day to day doesn’t follow one neat story or another. We move forward, we maybe have deep values underneath, but our accounts of “why” can and will change depending on context. We’re human, and thus as messy as that word should entail.)

I can tell more than two stories if I want to. I won’t here. But this is largely what I’m working on at the moment. In applying for grants, I need to get the details right, to sprinkle the right references and the right scientific arguments, but the broad story is equally important. I keep shuffling that story, a pile of not-quite-literal index cards, finding different orders and seeing how they sound, imagining my audience and thinking about what stories would work for them.

Why You Might Want to Inspire Kids to Be Physicists (And What Movies You’d Make as a Result)

1 Reply

Since the new Oppenheimer biopic came out, people have been making fun of this tweet by Sam Altman:

Expecting a movie about someone building an immensely destructive weapon, watching it plunge the world into paranoia, then getting mercilessly hounded about it to be an inspiration seems…a bit unrealistic? But everyone has already made that point. What I found more interesting was a blog post a couple days ago by science blogger Chad Orzel. Orzel asks, suppose you did want to make a movie inspiring kids to go into physics: how would you do it? I commented on his post with my own take on the question, then realized it might be nice as a post here.

If you want to inspire kids to go into physics with a movie, what do you do? Well, you can start by asking, why do you want kids to go into physics? Why do you want more physicists?

Maybe you believe that more physicists are needed to understand the fundamental laws of the universe. The quest of fundamental physics may be worthwhile in its own right, or may be important because understanding the universe gives us more tools to manipulate it. You might even think of Oppenheimer’s story in that way: because physicists understood the nature of the atom, they could apply that knowledge to change the world, racing to use it to defeat the Nazis and later convinced to continue to avoid a brutal invasion of Japan. (Whether the bomb was actually necessary to do this is still, of course, quite controversial.)

If that’s why you want more kids to be physicists, then you want a story like that. You could riff off of Ashoke Sen’s idea that physics may be essential to save humanity. The laws of physics appear to be unstable, such that at some point the world will shift and a “bubble”, expanding at the speed of light, will rewrite the rules in a way that would destroy all life as we know it. The only way to escape would be to travel faster than light, something that is possible because the universe itself expands at those speeds. By scattering “generation ships” in different directions, we could ensure that some of humanity would survive any such “bubble”: but only if we got the physics right.

A movie based on that idea could look a bit like the movie Cloud Atlas, with connected characters spanning multiple time periods. Scientists in the modern day investigate the expanding universe, making plans that refugees in a future generation ship must carry out. If you want to inspire kids with the idea that physics could save the world, you could get a lot of mileage out of a story that could actually be true.

On the other hand, maybe you don’t care so much about fundamental physics. Maybe you want more physicists because they’re good at solving a variety of problems. They help to invent new materials, to measure things precisely, to predict the weather, change computation, and even contribute to medicine. Maybe you want to tell a story about that.

(Maybe you even want these kids to go farther afield, and study physics without actually becoming physicists. Sam Altman is not a physicist, and I’ve heard he’s not very interested in directing his philanthropic money to increasing the number of jobs for physicists. On the other hand, the AI industry where he is a central player does hire a lot of ex-physicists.)

The problem, as Orzel points out, is that those stories aren’t really stories about physicists. They’re stories about engineering and technology, and a variety of other scientists, because a wide variety of people contribute to these problems. In order to tell a story that inspires people to be physicists, you need a story that highlights something unique that they bring to the table.

Orzel gets close to what I think of as the solution, by bringing up The Social Network. Altman was also mocked for saying that The Social Network motivated kids to found startups: the startup founders in that movie are not exactly depicted as good people. But in reality, it appears that the movie did motivate people to found startups. Stories about badass amoral jerks are engaging, and it’s easy to fantasize about having that kind of power and ability. There’s a reason that The Imitation Game depicted Alan Turing, a man known for his gentle kindness, as brusque and arrogant.

If you want to tell a story about physicists, it’s actually pretty easy, because physicists can be quite arrogant! There is a stereotype of physicists walking into another field, deciding they know everything they need to know, and lecturing the experts about how they should be doing their jobs. This really does happen, and sometimes it’s exactly as dumb as it sounds…but sometimes the physicists are right! Orzel brings up Feynman’s role in figuring out how the Challenger space shuttle blew up, an example of precisely this kind of success.

So if you want kids to grow up to be generalist physicists, people who solve all sorts of problems for all sorts of people, you need to tell them a story like that. One with a Sherlock-esque physicist who runs around showing how much smarter they are than everyone else. You need to make a plot where they physicist waves around “physicist tools”, like dimensional analysis, Fermi estimates, and thermodynamics, and uses them to uncover a mystery, showing a bunch of engineers or biologists just how much cooler they are.

If you do that, you probably could inspire some kids to become physicists. You’ll need a new movie to inspire them to be engineers or biologists, though!

Small Shifts for Specificity

2 Replies

Cosmologists are annoyed at a recent spate of news articles claiming the universe is 26.7 billion years old (rather than 13.8 billion as based on the current best measurements). To some of the science-reading public, the news sounds like a confirmation of hints they’d already heard: about an ancient “Methuselah” star that seemed to be older than the universe (later estimates put it younger), and recent observations from the James Webb Space Telescope of early galaxies that look older than they ought.

“The news doesn’t come from a telescope, though, or a new observation of the sky. Instead, it comes from this press release from the University of Ottawa: “Reinventing cosmology: uOttawa research puts age of universe at 26.7 — not 13.7 — billion years”.

(If you look, you’ll find many websites copying this press release almost word-for-word. This is pretty common in science news, where some websites simply aggregate press releases and others base most of their science news on them rather than paying enough for actual journalism.)

The press release, in turn, is talking about a theory, not an observation. The theorist, Rajendra Gupta, was motivated by examples like the early galaxies observed by JWST and the Methuselah star. Since the 13.8 billion year age of the universe is based on a mathematical model, he tried to find a different mathematical model that led to an older universe. Eventually, by hypothesizing what seems like every unproven physics effect he could think of, he found one that gives a different estimate, 26.7 billion. He probably wasn’t the first person to do this, because coming up with different models to explain odd observations is a standard thing cosmologists do all the time, and until one of the models is shown to explain a wider range of observations (because our best theories explain a lot, so they’re hard to replace), they’re just treated as speculation, not newsworthy science.

This is a pretty clear case of hype, and as such most of the discussion has been about what went wrong. Should we blame the theorist? The university? The journalists? Elon Musk?

Rather than blame, I think it’s more productive to offer advice. And in this situation, the person I think could use some advice is the person who wrote the press release.

So suppose you work for a university, writing their press releases. One day, you hear that one of your professors has done something very cool, something worthy of a press release: they’ve found a new estimate for the age of the universe. What do you do?

One thing you absolutely shouldn’t do is question the science. That just isn’t your job, and even if it were you don’t have the expertise to do that. Anyone who’s hoping that you will only write articles about good science and not bad science is being unrealistic, that’s just not an option.

If you can’t be more accurate, though, you can still be more precise. You can write your article, and in particular your headline, so that you express what you do know as clearly and specifically as possible.

(I’m assuming here you write your own headlines. This is not normal in journalism, where most headlines are written by an editor, not by the writer of a piece. But university press offices are small enough that I’m assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that you can choose how to title your piece.)

Let’s take a look at the title, “Reinventing cosmology: uOttawa research puts age of universe at 26.7 — not 13.7 — billion years”, and see if we can make some small changes to improve it.

One very general word in that title is “research”. Lots of people do research: astronomers do research when they collect observations, theorists do research when they make new models. If you say “research”, some people will think you’re reporting a new observation, a new measurement that gives a radically different age for the universe.

But you know that’s not true, it’s not what the scientist you’re talking to is telling you. So to avoid the misunderstanding, you can get a bit more specific, and replace the word “research” with a more precise one: “Reinventing cosmology: uOttawa theory puts age of universe at 26.7 — not 13.7 — billion years”.

“Theory” is just as familiar a word as “research”. You won’t lose clicks, you won’t confuse people. But now, you’ve closed off a big potential misunderstanding. By a small shift, you’ve gotten a lot clearer. And you didn’t need to question the science to do it!

You can do more small shifts, if you understand a bit more of the science. “Puts” is kind of ambiguous: a theory could put an age somewhere because it computes it from first principles, or because it dialed some parameter to get there. Here, the theory was intentionally chosen to give an older universe, so the title should hint at this in some way. Instead of “puts”, then, you can use “allows”: “Reinventing cosmology: uOttawa theory allows age of universe to be 26.7 — not 13.7 — billion years”.

These kinds of little tricks can be very helpful. If you’re trying to avoid being misunderstood, then it’s good to be as specific as you can, given what you understand. If you do it carefully, you don’t have to question your scientists’ ideas or downplay their contributions. You can do your job, promote your scientists, and still contribute to responsible journalism.