Tag Archives: theoretical physics

To Measure Something or to Test It

3 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Microdosing Vibe Physics

4 Replies

Have you heard of “vibe physics”?

The phrase “vibe coding” came first. People have been using large language models like ChatGPT to write computer code (and not the way I did last year). They chat with the model, describing what they want to do and asking the model to code it up. You can guess the arguments around this, from people who are convinced AI is already better than a human programmer to people sure the code will be riddled with errors and vulnerabilities.

Now, there are people claiming not only to do vibe coding, but vibe physics: doing theoretical physics by chatting with an AI.

I think we can all agree that’s a lot less plausible. Some of the people who do vibe coding actually know how to code, but I haven’t seen anyone claiming to do vibe physics who actually understands physics. They’re tech entrepreneurs in the most prominent cases, random people on the internet otherwise. And while a lot of computer code is a minor tweak on something someone has already done, theoretical physics doesn’t work that way: if someone has already come up with your idea, you’re an educator, not a physicist.

Still, I think there is something to keep in mind about the idea of “vibe physics”, related to where physics comes from.

Here’s a question to start with: go back a bit before the current chat-bot boom. There were a ton of other computational and mathematical tools. Theorem-proving software could encode almost arbitrary mathematical statements in computer code and guarantee their accuracy. Statistical concepts like Bayes’ rule described how to reason from evidence to conclusions, not flawlessly but as well as anyone reliably can. We had computer simulations for a wealth of physical phenomena, and approximation schemes for many others.

With all those tools, why did we still have human physicists?

That is, go back before ChatGPT, before large language models. Why not just code up a program that starts with the evidence and checks which mathematical model fits it best?

In principle, I think you really could have done that. But you could never run that program. It would take too long.

Doing science 100% correctly and reliably is agonizingly slow, and prohibitively expensive. You cannot check every possible model, nor can you check those models against all the available data. You must simplify your problem, somehow, even if it makes your work less reliable, and sometimes incorrect.

And for most of history, humans have provided that simplification.

A physicist isn’t going to consider every possible model. They’re going to consider models that are similar to models they studied, or similar to models others propose. They aren’t going to consider all the evidence. They’ll look at some of the evidence, the evidence other physicists are talking about and puzzled by. They won’t simulate the consequences of their hypotheses in exhaustive detail. Instead, they’ll guess, based on their own experience, a calculation that captures what they expect to be relevant.

Human physicists provided the unreliable part of physics, the heuristics. The “vibe physics”, if you will.

AI is also unreliable, also heuristic. But humans still do this better than AI.

Part of the difference is specificity. These AIs are trained on all of human language, and then perhaps fine-tuned on a general class of problems. A human expert has spent their life fine-tuning on one specific type of problem, and their intuitions, their heuristics, their lazy associations and vibes, all will be especially well-suited to problems of that type.

Another part of the difference, though, is scale.

When you talk to ChatGPT, it follows its vibes into paragraphs of text. If you turn on reasoning features, you make it check its work in the background, but it still is generating words upon words inside, evaluating those words, then generating more.

I suspect, for a physicist, the “control loop” is much tighter. Many potential ideas get ruled out a few words in. Many aren’t even expressed in words at all, just concepts. A human physicist is ultimately driven by vibes, but they check and verify those vibes, based on their experience, at a much higher frequency than any current AI system can achieve.

(I know almost nothing about neuroscience. I’m just basing this on what it can feel like, to grope through a sentence and have it assemble itself as it goes into something correct, rather than having to go back and edit it.)

As companies get access to bigger datacenters, I suspect they’ll try to make this loop tighter, to get AI to do something closer to what (I suspect, it appears) humans do. And then maybe AI will be able to do vibe physics.

Even then, though, you should not do vibe physics with the AI.

If you look at the way people describe doing vibe physics, they’re not using the AI for the vibes. They’re providing the vibes, and the AI is supposed to check things.

And that, I can confidently say, is completely ass-backwards. The AI is a vibe machine, it is great at vibes. Substituting your vibes will just make it worse. On the other hand, the AI is awful at checking things. It can find published papers sometimes, which can help you check something. But it is not set up to do the math, at least not unless the math can be phrased as a simple Python script or an IMO problem. In order to do anything like that, it has to call another type of software to verify. And you could have just used that software.

Theoretical physics is still not something everyone can do. Proposing a crackpot theory based on a few papers you found on Google and a couple YouTube videos may make you feel less confident than proposing a crackpot theory based on praise from ChatGPT and a list of papers it claims have something to do with your idea, which makes it more tempting. But it’s still proposing a crackpot theory. If you want to get involved, there’s still no substitute for actually learning how physics works.

Value in Formal Theory Land

1 Reply

What makes a physics theory valuable?

You may think that a theory’s job is to describe reality, to be true. If that’s the goal, we have a whole toolbox of ways to assess its value. We can check if it makes predictions and if those predictions are confirmed. We can assess whether the theory can cheat to avoid the consequences of its predictions (falsifiability) and whether its complexity is justified by the evidence (Occam’s razor, and statistical methods that follow from it).

But not every theory in physics can be assessed this way.

Some theories aren’t even trying to be true. Others may hope to have evidence some day, but are clearly not there yet, either because the tests are too hard or the theory hasn’t been fleshed out enough.

Some people specialize in theories like these. We sometimes say they’re doing “formal theory”, working with the form of theories rather than whether they describe the world.

Physics isn’t mathematics. Work in formal theory is still supposed to help describe the real world. But that help might take a long time to arrive. Until then, how can formal theorists know which theories are valuable?

One option is surprise. After years tinkering with theories, a formal theorist will have some idea of which sorts of theories are possible and which aren’t. Some of this is intuition and experience, but sometimes it comes in the form of an actual “no-go theorem”, a proof that a specific kind of theory cannot be consistent.

Intuition and experience can be wrong, though. Even no-go theorems are fallible, both because they have assumptions which can be evaded and because people often assume they go further than they do. So some of the most valuable theories are valuable because they are surprising: because they do something that many experienced theorists think is impossible.

Another option is usefulness. Here I’m not talking about technology: these are theories that may or may not describe the real world and can’t be tested in feasible experiments, they’re not being used for technology! But they can certainly be used by other theorists. They can show better ways to make predictions from other theories, or better ways to check other theories for contradictions. They can be a basis that other theories are built on.

I remember, back before my PhD, hearing about the consistent histories interpretation of quantum mechanics. I hadn’t heard much about it, but I did hear that it allowed calculations that other interpretations didn’t. At the time, I thought this was an obvious improvement: surely, if you can’t choose based on observations, you should at least choose an interpretation that is useful. In practice, it doesn’t quite live up to the hype. The things it allows you to calculate are things other interpretations would say don’t make sense to ask, questions like “what was the history of the universe” instead of observations you can test like “what will I see next?” But still, being able to ask new questions has proven useful to some, and kept a community interested.

Often, formal theories are judged on vaguer criteria. There’s a notion of explanatory power, of making disparate effects more intuitively part of the same whole. There’s elegance, or beauty, which is the theorist’s Occam’s razor, favoring ideas that do more with less. And there’s pure coolness, where a bunch of nerds are going to lean towards ideas that let them play with wormholes and multiverses.

But surprise, and usefulness, feel more solid to me. If you can find someone who says “I didn’t think this was possible”, then you’ve almost certainly done something valuable. And if you can’t do that, “I’d like to use this” is an excellent recommendation too.

Why Solving the Muon Puzzle Doesn’t Solve the Puzzle

4 Replies

You may have heard that the muon g-2 problem has been solved.

Muons are electrons’ heavier cousins. As spinning charged particles, they are magnetic, the strength of that magnetism characterized by a number denoted “g”. If you were to guess this number from classical physics alone, you’d conclude it should be 2, but quantum mechanics tweaks it. The leftover part, “g-2”, can be measured, and predicted, with extraordinary precision, which ought to make it an ideal test: if our current understanding of the particle physics, called the Standard Model, is subtly wrong, the difference might be noticeable there.

And for a while, it looked like such a difference was indeed noticeable. Extremely precise experiments over the last thirty years have consistently found a number slightly different from the extremely precise calculations, different enough that it seemed quite unlikely to be due to chance.

Now, the headlines are singing a different tune.

What changed?

That headline might make you think the change was an experimental result, a new measurement that changed the story. It wasn’t, though. There is a new, more precise measurement, but it agrees with the old measurements.

So the change has to be in the calculations, right? They did a new calculation, corrected a mistake or just pushed up their precision, and found that the Standard Model matches the experiment after all?

…sort of, but again, not really. The group of theoretical physicists associated with the experiment did release new, more accurate calculations. But it wasn’t the new calculations, by themselves, that made a difference. Instead, it was a shift in what kind of calculations they used…or even more specifically, what kind of calculations they trusted.

Parts of the calculation of g-2 can be done with Feynman diagrams, those photogenic squiggles you see on physicists’ blackboards. That part is very precise, and not especially controversial. However, Feynman diagrams only work well when forces between particles are comparatively weak. They’re great for electromagnetism, even better for the weak nuclear force. But for the strong nuclear force, the one that holds protons and neutrons together, you often need a different method.

For g-2, that used to be done via a “data-driven” method. Physicists measured different things, particles affected by the strong nuclear force in different ways, and used that to infer how the strong force would affect g-2. By getting a consistent picture from different experiments, they were reasonably confident that they had the right numbers.

Back in 2020, though, a challenger came to the scene, with another method. Called lattice QCD, this method involves building gigantic computer simulations of the effect of the strong force. People have been doing lattice QCD since the 1970’s, and the simulations have been getting better and better, until in 2020, a group managed to calculate the piece of the g-2 calculation that had until then been done by the data-driven method.

The lattice group found a very different result than what had been found previously. Instead of a wild disagreement with experiment, their calculation agreed. According to them, everything was fine, the muon g-2 was behaving exactly as the Standard Model predicted.

For some of us, that’s where the mystery ended. Clearly, something must be wrong with the data-driven method, not with the Standard Model. No more muon puzzle.

But the data-driven method wasn’t just a guess, it was being used for a reason. A significant group of physicists found the arguments behind it convincing. Now, there was a new puzzle: figuring out why the data-driven method and lattice QCD disagree.

Five years later, has that mystery been solved? Is that, finally, what the headlines are about?

Again, not really, no.

The theorists associated with the experiment have decided to trust lattice QCD, not the data-driven method. But they don’t know what went wrong, exactly.

Instead, they’ve highlighted cracks in the data-driven method. The way the data-driven method works, it brings together different experiments to try to get a shared picture. But that shared picture has started to fall apart. A new measurement by a different experiment doesn’t fit into the system: the data-driven method now “has tensions”, as physicists say. It’s no longer possible to combine all experiments into a shared picture they way they used to. Meanwhile, lattice QCD has gotten even better, reaching even higher precision. From the perspective of the theorists associated with the muon g-2 experiment, switching methods is now clearly the right call.

But does that mean they solved the puzzle?

If you were confident that lattice QCD is the right approach, then the puzzle was already solved in 2020. All that changed was the official collaboration finally acknowledging that.

And if you were confident that the data-driven method was the right approach, then the puzzle is even worse. Now, there are tensions within the method itself…but still no explanation of what went wrong! If you had good reasons to think the method should work, you still have those good reasons. Now you’re just…more puzzled.

I am reminded of another mystery, a few years back, when an old experiment announced a dramatically different measurement for the mass of the W boson. Then, I argued the big mystery was not how the W boson’s mass had changed (it hadn’t), but how they came to be so confident in a result so different from what others, also confidently, had found. In physics, our confidence is encoded in numbers, estimated and measured and tested and computed. If we’re not estimating that confidence correctly…then that’s the real mystery, the real puzzle. One much more important to solve.

Also, I had two more pieces out this week! In Quanta I have a short explainer about bosons and fermions, while at Ars Technica I have a piece about machine learning at the LHC. I may have a “bonus info” post on the latter at some point, I have to think about whether I have enough material for it.

Amplitudes 2025 This Week

1 Reply

Summer is conference season for academics, and this week held my old sub-field’s big yearly conference, called Amplitudes. This year, it was in Seoul at Seoul National University, the first time the conference has been in Asia.

(I wasn’t there, I don’t go to these anymore. But I’ve been skimming slides in my free time, to give you folks the updates you crave. Be forewarned that conference posts like these get technical fast, I’ll be back to my usual accessible self next week.)

There isn’t a huge amplitudes community in Korea, but it’s bigger than it was back when I got started in the field. Of the organizers, Kanghoon Lee of the Asia Pacific Center for Theoretical Physics and Sangmin Lee of Seoul National University have what I think of as “core amplitudes interests”, like recursion relations and the double-copy. The other Korean organizers are from adjacent areas, work that overlaps with amplitudes but doesn’t show up at the conference each year. There was also a sizeable group of organizers from Taiwan, where there has been a significant amplitudes presence for some time now. I do wonder if Korea was chosen as a compromise between a conference hosted in Taiwan or in mainland China, where there is also quite a substantial amplitudes community.

One thing that impresses me every year is how big, and how sophisticated, the gravitational-wave community in amplitudes has grown. Federico Buccioni’s talk began with a plot that illustrates this well (though that wasn’t his goal):

At the conference Amplitudes, dedicated to the topic of scattering amplitudes, there were almost as many talks with the phrase “black hole” in the title as there were with “scattering” or “amplitudes”! This is for a topic that did not even exist in the subfield when I got my PhD eleven years ago.

With that said, gravitational wave astronomy wasn’t quite as dominant at the conference as Buccioni’s bar chart suggests. There were a few talks each day on the topic: I counted seven in total, excluding any short talks on the subject in the gong show. Spinning black holes were a significant focus, central to Jung-Wook Kim’s, Andres Luna’s and Mao Zeng’s talks (the latter two showing some interesting links between the amplitudes story and classic ideas in classical mechanics) and relevant in several others, with Riccardo Gonzo, Miguel Correia, Ira Rothstein, and Enrico Herrmann’s talks showing not just a wide range of approaches, but an increasing depth of research in this area.

Herrmann’s talk in particular dealt with detector event shapes, a framework that lets physicists think more directly about what a specific particle detector or observer can see. He applied the idea not just to gravitational waves but to quantum gravity and collider physics as well. The latter is historically where this idea has been applied the most thoroughly, as highlighted in Hua Xing Zhu’s talk, where he used them to pick out particular phenomena of interest in QCD.

QCD is, of course, always of interest in the amplitudes field. Buccioni’s talk dealt with the theory’s behavior at high-energies, with a nice example of the “maximal transcendentality principle” where some quantities in QCD are identical to quantities in N=4 super Yang-Mills in the “most transcendental” pieces (loosely, those with the highest powers of pi). Andrea Guerreri’s talk also dealt with high-energy behavior in QCD, trying to address an experimental puzzle where QCD results appeared to violate a fundamental bound all sensible theories were expected to obey. By using S-matrix bootstrap techniques, they clarify the nature of the bound, finding that QCD still obeys it once correctly understood, and conjecture a weird theory that should be possible to frame right on the edge of the bound. The S-matrix bootstrap was also used by Alexandre Homrich, who talked about getting the framework to work for multi-particle scattering.

Heribertus Bayu Hartanto is another recent addition to Korea’s amplitudes community. He talked about a concrete calculation, two-loop five-particle scattering including top quarks, a tricky case that includes elliptic curves.

When amplitudes lead to integrals involving elliptic curves, many standard methods fail. Jake Bourjaily’s talk raised a question he has brought up again and again: what does it mean to do an integral for a new type of function? One possible answer is that it depends on what kind of numerics you can do, and since more general numerical methods can be cumbersome one often needs to understand the new type of function in more detail. In light of that, Stephen Jones’ talk was interesting in taking a common problem often cited with generic approaches (that they have trouble with the complex numbers introduced by Minkowski space) and finding a more natural way in a particular generic approach (sector decomposition) to take them into account. Giulio Salvatori talked about a much less conventional numerical method, linked to the latest trend in Nima-ology, surfaceology. One of the big selling points of the surface integral framework promoted by people like Salvatori and Nima Arkani-Hamed is that it’s supposed to give a clear integral to do for each scattering amplitude, one which should be amenable to a numerical treatment recently developed by Michael Borinsky. Salvatori can currently apply the method only to a toy model (up to ten loops!), but he has some ideas for how to generalize it, which will require handling divergences and numerators.

Other approaches to the “problem of integration” included Anna-Laura Sattelberger’s talk that presented a method to find differential equations for the kind of integrals that show up in amplitudes using the mathematical software Macaulay2, including presenting a package. Matthias Wilhelm talked about the work I did with him, using machine learning to find better methods for solving integrals with integration-by-parts, an area where two other groups have now also published. Pierpaolo Mastrolia talked about integration-by-parts’ up-and-coming contender, intersection theory, a method which appears to be delving into more mathematical tools in an effort to catch up with its competitor.

Sometimes, one is more specifically interested in the singularities of integrals than their numerics more generally. Felix Tellander talked about a geometric method to pin these down which largely went over my head, but he did have a very nice short description of the approach: “Describe the singularities of the integrand. Find a map representing integration. Map the singularities of the integrand onto the singularities of the integral.”

While QCD and gravity are the applications of choice, amplitudes methods germinate in N=4 super Yang-Mills. Ruth Britto’s talk opened the conference with an overview of progress along those lines before going into her own recent work with one-loop integrals and interesting implications of ideas from cluster algebras. Cluster algebras made appearances in several other talks, including Anastasia Volovich’s talk which discussed how ideas from that corner called flag cluster algebras may give insights into QCD amplitudes, though some symbol letters still seem to be hard to track down. Matteo Parisi covered another idea, cluster promotion maps, which he thinks may help pin down algebraic symbol letters.

The link between cluster algebras and symbol letters is an ongoing mystery where the field is seeing progress. Another symbol letter mystery is antipodal duality, where flipping an amplitude like a palindrome somehow gives another valid amplitude. Lance Dixon has made progress in understanding where this duality comes from, finding a toy model where it can be understood and proved.

Others pushed the boundaries of methods specific to N=4 super Yang-Mills, looking for novel structures. Song He’s talk pushes an older approach by Bourjaily and collaborators up to twelve loops, finding new patterns and connections to other theories and observables. Qinglin Yang bootstraps Wilson loops with a Lagrangian insertion, adding a side to the polygon used in previous efforts and finding that, much like when you add particles to amplitudes in a bootstrap, the method gets stricter and more powerful. Jaroslav Trnka talked about work he has been doing with “negative geometries”, an odd method descended from the amplituhedron that looks at amplitudes from a totally different perspective, probing a bit of their non-perturbative data. He’s finding more parts of that setup that can be accessed and re-summed, finding interestingly that multiple-zeta-values show up in quantities where we know they ultimately cancel out. Livia Ferro also talked about a descendant of the amplituhedron, this time for cosmology, getting differential equations for cosmological observables in a particular theory from a combinatorial approach.

Outside of everybody’s favorite theories, some speakers talked about more general approaches to understanding the differences between theories. Andreas Helset covered work on the geometry of the space of quantum fields in a theory, applying the method to a general framework for characterizing deviations from the standard model called the SMEFT. Jasper Roosmale Nepveu also talked about a general space of theories, thinking about how positivity (a trait linked to fundamental constraints like causality and unitarity) gets tangled up with loop effects, and the implications this has for renormalization.

Soft theorems, universal behavior of amplitudes when a particle has low energy, continue to be a trendy topic, with Silvia Nagy showing how the story continues to higher orders and Sangmin Choi investigating loop effects. Callum Jones talks about one of the more powerful results from the soft limit, Weinberg’s theorem showing the uniqueness of gravity. Weinberg’s proof was set up in Minkowski space, but we may ultimately live in curved, de Sitter space. Jones showed how the ideas Weinberg explored generalize in de Sitter, using some tools from the soft-theorem-inspired field of dS/CFT. Julio Parra-Martinez, meanwhile, tied soft theorems to another trendy topic, higher symmetries, a more general notion of the usual types of symmetries that physicists have explored in the past. Lucia Cordova reported work that was not particularly connected to soft theorems but was connected to these higher symmetries, showing how they interact with crossing symmetry and the S-matrix bootstrap.

Finally, a surprisingly large number of talks linked to Kevin Costello and Natalie Paquette’s work with self-dual gauge theories, where they found exact solutions from a fairly mathy angle. Paquette gave an update on her work on the topic, while Alfredo Guevara talked about applications to black holes, comparing the power of expanding around a self-dual gauge theory to that of working with supersymmetry. Atul Sharma looked at scattering in self-dual backgrounds in work that merges older twistor space ideas with the new approach, while Roland Bittelson talked about calculating around an instanton background.

Also, I had another piece up this week at FirstPrinciples, based on an interview with the (outgoing) president of the Sloan Foundation. I won’t have a “bonus info” post for this one, as most of what I learned went into the piece. But if you don’t know what the Sloan Foundation does, take a look! I hadn’t known they funded Jupyter notebooks and Hidden Figures, or that they introduced Kahneman and Tversky.

In Scientific American, With a Piece on Vacuum Decay

Leave a reply

I had a piece in Scientific American last week. It’s paywalled, but if you’re a subscriber there you can see it, or you can buy the print magazine.

(I also had two pieces out in other outlets this week. I’ll be saying more about them…in a couple weeks.)

The Scientific American piece is about an apocalyptic particle physics scenario called vacuum decay. It’s a topic I covered last year in Quanta Magazine, an unlikely event where the Higgs field which gives fundamental particles their mass changes value, suddenly making all other particles much more massive and changing physics as we know it. It’s a change that physicists think would start as a small bubble and spread at (almost) the speed of light, covering the universe.

What I wrote for Quanta was a short news piece covering a small adjustment to the calculation, one that made the chance of vacuum decay slightly more likely. (But still mind-bogglingly small, to be clear.)

Scientific American asked for a longer piece, and that gave me space to dig deeper. I was able to say more about how vacuum decay works, with a few metaphors that I think should make it a lot easier to understand. I also got to learn about some new developments, in particular, an interesting story about how tiny primordial black holes could make vacuum decay dramatically more likely.

One thing that was a bit too complicated to talk about were the puzzles involved in trying to calculate these chances. In the article, I mention a calculation of the chance of vacuum decay by a team including Matthew Schwartz. That calculation wasn’t the first to estimate the chance of vacuum decay, and it’s not the most recent update either. Instead, I picked it because Schwartz’s team approached the question in what struck me as a more reliable way, trying to cut through confusion by asking the most basic question you can in a quantum theory: given that now you observe X, what’s the chance that later you observe Y? Figuring out how to turn vacuum decay into that kind of question correctly is tricky (for example, you need to include the possibility that vacuum decay happens, then reverses, then happens again).

The calculations of black holes speeding things up didn’t work things out in quite as much detail. I like to think I’ve made a small contribution by motivating them to look at Schwartz’s work, which might spawn a more rigorous calculation in future. When I talked to Schwartz, he wasn’t even sure whether the picture of a bubble forming in one place and spreading at light speed is correct: he’d calculated the chance of the initial decay, but hadn’t found a similarly rigorous way to think about the aftermath. So even more than the uncertainty I talk about in the piece, the questions about new physics and probability, there is even some doubt about whether the whole picture really works the way we’ve been imagining it.

That makes for a murky topic! But it’s also a flashy one, a compelling story for science fiction and the public imagination, and yeah, another motivation to get high-precision measurements of the Higgs and top quark from future colliders! (If maybe not quite the way this guy said it.)

I Have a Theory

1 Reply

“I have a theory,” says the scientist in the book. But what does that mean? What does it mean to “have” a theory?

First, there’s the everyday sense. When you say “I have a theory”, you’re talking about an educated guess. You think you know why something happened, and you want to check your idea and get feedback. A pedant would tell you you don’t really have a theory, you have a hypothesis. It’s “your” hypothesis, “your theory”, because it’s what you think happened.

The pedant would insist that “theory” means something else. A theory isn’t a guess, even an educated guess. It’s an explanation with evidence, tested and refined in many different contexts in many different ways, a whole framework for understanding the world, the most solid knowledge science can provide. Despite the pedant’s insistence, that isn’t the only way scientists use the word “theory”. But it is a common one, and a central one. You don’t really “have” a theory like this, though, except in the sense that we all do. These are explanations with broad consensus, things you either know of or don’t, they don’t belong to one person or another.

Except, that is, if one person takes credit for them. We sometimes say “Darwin’s theory of evolution”, or “Einstein’s theory of relativity”. In that sense, we could say that Einstein had a theory, or that Darwin had a theory.

Sometimes, though, “theory” doesn’t mean this standard official definition, even when scientists say it. And that changes what it means to “have” a theory.

For some researchers, a theory is a lens with which to view the world. This happens sometimes in physics, where you’ll find experts who want to think about a situation in terms of thermodynamics, or in terms of a technique called Effective Field Theory. It happens in mathematics, where some choose to analyze an idea with category theory not to prove new things about it, but just to translate it into category theory lingo. It’s most common, though, in the humanities, where researchers often specialize in a particular “interpretive framework”.

For some, a theory is a hypothesis, but also a pet project. There are physicists who come up with an idea (maybe there’s a variant of gravity with mass! maybe dark energy is changing!) and then focus their work around that idea. That includes coming up with ways to test whether the idea is true, showing the idea is consistent, and understanding what variants of the idea could be proposed. These ideas are hypotheses, in that they’re something the scientist thinks could be true. But they’re also ideas with many moving parts that motivate work by themselves.

Taken to the extreme, this kind of “having” a theory can go from healthy science to political bickering. Instead of viewing an idea as a hypothesis you might or might not confirm, it can become a platform to fight for. Instead of investigating consistency and proposing tests, you focus on arguing against objections and disproving your rivals. This sometimes happens in science, especially in more embattled areas, but it happens much more often with crackpots, where people who have never really seen science done can decide it’s time for their idea, right or wrong.

Finally, sometimes someone “has” a theory that isn’t a hypothesis at all. In theoretical physics, a “theory” can refer to a complete framework, even if that framework isn’t actually supposed to describe the real world. Some people spend time focusing on a particular framework of this kind, understanding its properties in the hope of getting broader insights. By becoming an expert on one particular theory, they can be said to “have” that theory.

Bonus question: in what sense do string theorists “have” string theory?

You might imagine that string theory is an interpretive framework, like category theory, with string theorists coming up with the “string version” of things others understand in other ways. This, for the most part, doesn’t happen. Without knowing whether string theory is true, there isn’t much benefit in just translating other things to string theory terms, and people for the most part know this.

For some, string theory is a pet project hypothesis. There is a community of people who try to get predictions out of string theory, or who investigate whether string theory is consistent. It’s not a huge number of people, but it exists. A few of these people can get more combative, or make unwarranted assumptions based on dedication to string theory in particular: for example, you’ll see the occasional argument that because something is difficult in string theory it must be impossible in any theory of quantum gravity. You see a spectrum in the community, from people for whom string theory is a promising project to people for whom it is a position that needs to be defended and argued for.

For the rest, the question of whether string theory describes the real world takes a back seat. They’re people who “have” string theory in the sense that they’re experts, and they use the theory primarily as a mathematical laboratory to learn broader things about how physics works. If you ask them, they might still say that they hypothesize string theory is true. But for most of these people, that question isn’t central to their work.

Bonus Material for “How Hans Bethe Stumbled Upon Perfect Quantum Theories”

Leave a reply

I had an article last week in Quanta Magazine. It’s a piece about something called the Bethe ansatz, a method in mathematical physics that was discovered by Hans Bethe in the 1930’s, but which only really started being understood and appreciated around the 1960’s. Since then it’s become a key tool, used in theoretical investigations in areas from condensed matter to quantum gravity. In this post, I thought I’d say a bit about the story behind the piece and give some bonus material that didn’t fit.

When I first decided to do the piece I reached out to Jules Lamers. We were briefly office-mates when I worked in France, where he was giving a short course on the Bethe ansatz and the methods that sprung from it. It turned out he had also been thinking about writing a piece on the subject, and we considered co-writing for a bit, but that didn’t work for Quanta. He helped me a huge amount with understanding the history of the subject and tracking down the right sources. If you’re a physicist who wants to learn about these things, I recommend his lecture notes. And if you’re a non-physicist who wants to know more, I hope he gets a chance to write a longer popular-audience piece on the topic!

If you clicked through to Jules’s lecture notes, you’d see the word “Bethe ansatz” doesn’t appear in the title. Instead, you’d see the phrase “quantum integrability”. In classical physics, an “integrable” system is one where you can calculate what will happen by doing an integral, essentially letting you “solve” any problem completely. Systems you can describe with the Bethe ansatz are solvable in a more complicated quantum sense, so they get called “quantum integrable”. There’s a whole research field that studies these quantum integrable systems.

My piece ended up rushing through the history of the field. After talking about Bethe’s original discovery, I jumped ahead to ice. The Bethe ansatz was first used to think about ice in the 1960’s, but the developments I mentioned leading up to it, where experimenters noticed extra variability and theorists explained it with the positions of hydrogen atoms, happened earlier, in the 1930’s. (Thanks to the commenter who pointed out that this was confusing!) Baxter gets a starring role in this section and had an important role in tying things together, but other people (Lieb and Sutherland) were involved earlier, showing that the Bethe ansatz indeed could be used with thin sheets of ice. This era had a bunch of other big names that I didn’t have space to talk about: C. N. Yang makes an appearance, and while Faddeev comes up later, I didn’t mention that he had a starring role in the 1970’s in understanding the connection to classical integrability and proposing a mathematical structure to understand what links all these different integrable theories together.

I vaguely gestured at black holes and quantum gravity, but didn’t have space for more than that. The connection there is to a topic you might have heard of before if you’ve read about string theory, called AdS/CFT, a connection between two kinds of world that are secretly the same: a toy model of gravity called Anti-de Sitter space (AdS) and a theory without gravity that looks the same at any scale (called a Conformal Field Theory, or CFT). It turns out that in the most prominent example of this, the theory without gravity is integrable! In fact, it’s a theory I spent a lot of time working with back in my research days, called N=4 super Yang-Mills. This theory is kind of like QCD, and in some sense it has integrability for similar reasons to those that Feynman hoped for and Korchemsky and Faddeev found. But it actually goes much farther, outside of the high-energy approximation where Korchemsky and Faddeev’s result works, and in principle seems to include everything you might want to know about the theory. Nowadays, people are using it to investigate the toy model of quantum gravity, hoping to get insights about quantum gravity in general.

One thing I didn’t get a chance to mention at all is the connection to quantum computing. People are trying to build a quantum computer with carefully-cooled atoms. It’s important to test whether the quantum computer functions well enough, or if the quantum states aren’t as perfect as they need to be. One way people have been testing this is with the Bethe ansatz: because it lets you calculate the behavior of special systems perfectly, you can set up your quantum computer to model a Bethe ansatz, and then check how close to the prediction your results are. You know that the theoretical result is complete, so any failure has to be due to an imperfection in your experiment.

I gave a quick teaser to a very active field, one that has fascinated a lot of prominent physicists and been applied in a wide variety of areas. I hope I’ve inspired you to learn more!

Integration by Parts, Evolved

5 Replies

I posted what may be my last academic paper today, about a project I’ve been working on with Matthias Wilhelm for most of the last year. The paper is now online here. For me, the project has been a chance to broaden my horizons, learn new skills, and start to step out of my academic comfort zone. For Matthias, I hope it was grant money well spent.

I wanted to work on something related to machine learning, for the usual trendy employability reasons. Matthias was already working with machine learning, but was interested in pursuing a different question.

When is machine learning worthwhile? Machine learning methods are heuristics, unreliable methods that sometimes work well. You don’t use a heuristic if you have a reliable method that runs fast enough. But if all you have are heuristics to begin with, then machine learning can give you a better heuristic.

Matthias noticed a heuristic embedded deep in how we do particle physics, and guessed that we could do better. In particle physics, we use pictures called Feynman diagrams to predict the probabilities for different outcomes of collisions, comparing those predictions to observation to look for evidence of new physics. Each Feynman diagram corresponds to an integral, and for each calculation there are hundreds, thousands, or even millions of those integrals to do.

Luckily, physicists don’t actually have to do all those integrals. It turns out that most of them are related, by a slightly more advanced version of that calculus class mainstay, integration by parts. Using integration by parts you can solve a list of equations, finding out how to write your integrals in terms of a much smaller list.

How big a list of equations do you need, and which ones? Twenty-five years ago, Stefano Laporta proposed a “golden rule” to choose, based on his own experience, and people have been using it (more or less, with their own tweaks) since then.

Laporta’s rule is a heuristic, with no proof that it is the best option, or even that it will always work. So we probably shouldn’t have been surprised when someone came up with a better heuristic. Watching talks at a December 2023 conference, Matthias saw a presentation by Johann Usovitsch on a curious new rule. The rule was surprisingly simple, just one extra condition on top of Laporta’s. But it was enough to reduce the number of equations by a factor of twenty.

That’s great progress, but it’s also a bit frustrating. Over almost twenty-five years, no-one had guessed this one simple change?

Maybe, thought Matthias and I, we need to get better at guessing.

We started out thinking we’d try reinforcement learning, a technique where a machine is trained by playing a game again and again, changing its strategy when that strategy brings it a reward. We thought we could have the machine learn to cut away extra equations, getting rewarded if it could cut more while still getting the right answer. We didn’t end up pursuing this very far before realizing another strategy would be a better fit.

What is a rule, but a program? Laporta’s golden rule and Johann’s new rule could both be expressed as simple programs. So we decided to use a method that could guess programs.

One method stood out for sheer trendiness and audacity: FunSearch. FunSearch is a type of algorithm called a genetic algorithm, which tries to mimic evolution. It makes a population of different programs, “breeds” them with each other to create new programs, and periodically selects out the ones that perform best. That’s not the trendy or audacious part, though, people have been doing that sort of genetic programming for a long time.

The trendy, audacious part is that FunSearch generates these programs with a Large Language Model, or LLM (the type of technology behind ChatGPT). Using an LLM trained to complete code, FunSearch presents the model with two programs labeled v0 and v1 and asks it to complete v2. In general, program v2 will have some traits from v0 and v1, but also a lot of variation due to the unpredictable output of LLMs. The inventors of FunSearch used this to contribute the variation needed for evolution, using it to evolve programs to find better solutions to math problems.

We decided to try FunSearch on our problem, modifying it a bit to fit the case. We asked it to find a shorter list of equations, giving a better score for a shorter list but a penalty if the list wasn’t able to solve the problem fully.

Some tinkering and headaches later, it worked! After a few days and thousands of program guesses, FunSearch was able to find a program that reproduced the new rule Johann had presented. A few hours more, and it even found a rule that was slightly better!

But then we started wondering: do we actually need days of GPU time to do this?

An expert on heuristics we knew had insisted, at the beginning, that we try something simpler. The approach we tried then didn’t work. But after running into some people using genetic programming at a conference last year, we decided to try again, using a Python package they used in their work. This time, it worked like a charm, taking hours rather than days to find good rules.

This was all pretty cool, a great opportunity for me to cut my teeth on Python programming and its various attendant skills. And it’s been inspiring, with Matthias drawing together more people interested in seeing just how much these kinds of heuristic methods can do there. I should be clear though, that so far I don’t think our result is useful. We did better than the state of the art on an example, but only slightly, and in a way that I’d guess doesn’t generalize. And we needed quite a bit of overhead to do it. Ultimately, while I suspect there’s something useful to find in this direction, it’s going to require more collaboration, both with people using the existing methods who know better what the bottlenecks are, and with experts in these, and other, kinds of heuristics.

So I’m curious to see what the future holds. And for the moment, happy that I got to try this out!

How Small Scales Can Matter for Large Scales

Leave a reply

For a certain type of physicist, nothing matters more than finding the ultimate laws of nature for its tiniest building-blocks, the rules that govern quantum gravity and tell us where the other laws of physics come from. But because they know very little about those laws at this point, they can predict almost nothing about observations on the larger distance scales we can actually measure.

“Almost nothing” isn’t nothing, though. Theoretical physicists don’t know nature’s ultimate laws. But some things about them can be reasonably guessed. The ultimate laws should include a theory of quantum gravity. They should explain at least some of what we see in particle physics now, explaining why different particles have different masses in terms of a simpler theory. And they should “make sense”, respecting cause and effect, the laws of probability, and Einstein’s overall picture of space and time.

All of these are assumptions, of course. Further assumptions are needed to derive any testable consequences from them. But a few communities in theoretical physics are willing to take the plunge, and see what consequences their assumptions have.

First, there’s the Swampland. String theorists posit that the world has extra dimensions, which can be curled up in a variety of ways to hide from view, with different observable consequences depending on how the dimensions are curled up. This list of different observable consequences is referred to as the Landscape of possibilities. Based on that, some string theorists coined the term “Swampland” to represent an area outside the Landscape, containing observations that are incompatible with quantum gravity altogether, and tried to figure out what those observations would be.

In principle, the Swampland includes the work of all the other communities on this list, since a theory of quantum gravity ought to be consistent with other principles as well. In practice, people who use the term focus on consequences of gravity in particular. The earliest such ideas argued from thought experiments with black holes, finding results that seemed to demand that gravity be the weakest force for at least one type of particle. Later researchers would more frequently use string theory as an example, looking at what kinds of constructions people had been able to make in the Landscape to guess what might lie outside of it. They’ve used this to argue that dark energy might be temporary, and to try to figure out what traits new particles might have.

Second, I should mention naturalness. When talking about naturalness, people often use the analogy of a pen balanced on its tip. While possible in principle, it must have been set up almost perfectly, since any small imbalance would cause it to topple, and that perfection demands an explanation. Similarly, in particle physics, things like the mass of the Higgs boson and the strength of dark energy seem to be carefully balanced, so that a small change in how they were set up would lead to a much heavier Higgs boson or much stronger dark energy. The need for an explanation for the Higgs’ careful balance is why many physicists expected the Large Hadron Collider to discover additional new particles.

As I’ve argued before, this kind of argument rests on assumptions about the fundamental laws of physics. It assumes that the fundamental laws explain the mass of the Higgs, not merely by giving it an arbitrary number but by showing how that number comes from a non-arbitrary physical process. It also assumes that we understand well how physical processes like that work, and what kinds of numbers they can give. That’s why I think of naturalness as a type of argument, much like the Swampland, that uses the smallest scales to constrain larger ones.

Third is a host of constraints that usually go together: causality, unitarity, and positivity. Causality comes from cause and effect in a relativistic universe. Because two distant events can appear to happen in different orders depending on how fast you’re going, any way to send signals faster than light is also a way to send signals back in time, causing all of the paradoxes familiar from science fiction. Unitarity comes from quantum mechanics. If quantum calculations are supposed to give the probability of things happening, those probabilities should make sense as probabilities: for example, they should never go above one.

You might guess that almost any theory would satisfy these constraints. But if you extend a theory to the smallest scales, some theories that otherwise seem sensible end up failing this test. Actually linking things up takes other conjectures about the mathematical form theories can have, conjectures that seem more solid than the ones underlying Swampland and naturalness constraints but that still can’t be conclusively proven. If you trust the conjectures, you can derive restrictions, often called positivity constraints when they demand that some set of observations is positive. There has been a renaissance in this kind of research over the last few years, including arguments that certain speculative theories of gravity can’t actually work.