Classic Edition: Shut Up and Calculate, Already

I'm going to be away from the computer for the long weekend, but I don't want to have the site go completely dark, even over a weekend, so I'm going to schedule a few posts from the archives to show up while I'm away. Everyone else seems to be doing it (and pushing my posts off the front page, the bastards), so I might as well.

This goes back to the early days of the blog, back in August of 2002, and is at least vaguely relevant to the recent discussion of interpretations.

It's been a while now since I talked about science stuff, mostly because there hasn't been any news that I felt strongly enough about to put in the effort to write long posts about. There's been a very recent up-tick in the number of interesting science stories out there, most notably this Australian report (and what's gotten into the Aussies, anyway?) that the speed of light may be changing on cosmological time scales, which I'll get around to once I find a less garbled description of it than the Yahoo story, and get some time to think about it. (Irritatingly, the paper in question was published in Nature, whose obnoxious subscription policy makes it impossible for me to get an on-line copy of the actual paper, and forces me to-- shock! horror! walk to the library to find a physical copy of the article...)

There is a good jumping-off point for some science stuff that doesn't require me to drag my fat ass out of my office, though, as Derek Lowe's been reading Feynman and asks a number of questions about the nature of scientific knowledge, specifically quantum mechanics. Sadly, the easiest of these ("Why does a p-orbital take six electrons?") has already been answered, though I would've phrased the answer a bit differently (it's basically an issue of nomenclature-- what chemists call a "p-orbital" is really three atomic states with essentially the same energy (you're not too far wrong if you think of them as orbitals aligned along the x, y, and z-axes), each of which gets two electrons. Likewise, a "d-orbital" is five states, an "f-orbital" seven, and so on... The distinction between these states doesn't matter all that much for chemistry, but it's the stuff careers in atomic physics are made of.), leaving the difficult philosophical questions behind ("Why is angular momentum quantized in the first place?").

I haven't actually read the Feynman book in question (The Character of Physical Law), though it's on the vague list of "books I really ought to read one of these days." These philosophical and meta-physical questions also aren't the sort of thing I spend a lot of time thinking about (I subscribe to the "Shut Up and Calculate" interpretation of quantum mechanics), for the simple reason that you very quickly start banging your head against the wall. The questions are always there, though, and as Derek notes, at bottom, they all come down to "the peculiar effectiveness of mathematics." We live in a Universe that behaves (or at least appears to behave) according to very simple and elegant mathematical rules, and it's not clear why that should be.

At the level of physics where I work, there are a handful of rock-solid mathematical principles that everything else comes out of:

  • Conservation of Energy: Energy is neither created nor destroyed, but only changed from one form into another. Thanks to Einstein, we can lump mass in here as well, mass and energy being interchangeable. At the end of the day, when you total up all the mass and energy you've got in whatever system you're working on, you have the same total energy you did when you started the experiment.
  • Conservation of Momentum: In the absence of an external force, the total momentum of a system remains constant, though it can be redistributed among the bodies in the system. Newton's famous Laws of Motion are, in a certain sense, just a statement of the law of conservation of momentum.
  • Conservation of Angular Momentum: Angular momentum, like linear momentum, remains constant unless something from outside the system acts to change it. Conservation of angular momentum is the oddest of the lot, in many ways-- it's what gives rise to the odd properties of gyroscopes, and the question about orbitals above.

Depending on how interested you are in the enumeration of rules, you can add several other rules to this list (the Second Law of Thermodynamics probably belongs, and high-energy physicists probably consider a few other conservation laws), or you can re-cast them in more formal terms (conservation of momentum is a consequence of the translational invariance of space (the structure of space-time doesn't change if you move in a straight line), conservation of angular momentum is a consequence of the rotational invariance of space), and you can even find violations of those rules on very short time scales for very small objects. You can also hand-wave your way from microscopic to microscopic versions of the rules (the angular momentum of macroscopic things is conserved, and that property has to arise from some properties of the original atoms) or vice versa (angular momentum is conserved in atoms, and thus is still conserved when you stick a whole bunch of atoms together). In the end, though, all of that just amounts to pushing the pieces of a puzzle around on the table-- you can shuffle them around all you like, but eventually, you still need to make them fit together. You're still stuck with a Universe that runs off a handful of simple mathematical rules, and you're no closer to understanding the ultimate origin of those rules.

The trivial and unhelpful answer is to invoke the Anthropic Principle in one of its many forms, which basically amounts to saying "If the Universe didn't work the way it does, we wouldn't be here to ask that question, so it doesn't matter" It's a useful way of pushing the question off, and getting it out of the way to allow yourself the room to get some work done. I suspect that, consciously or not, most scientists have a point at which they invoke the Anthropic Principle or something like it-- without it we'd get stuck on these questions forever, and all end up gibbering quietly in corners, with caring family members making sure we don't get hold of sharp objects or graph paper.

Unfortunately, I haven't heard any better answer to the fundamental question of why the Universe behaves the way it does. There's no obvious reason why the Universe has to behave in a mathematically regular way-- scientists find it very satisfying that it does (to the point that some categories of string theorists use mathematical elegance as a standard of proof), but there are other groups of people who would be happier to think that it's all Divine Providence, or invisible pink unicorns pushing objects around with their horns. There's no obvious reason why mathematical rules should work to describe the behavior of the Universe, but they do work, and they work astonishingly well. It provides a real sense of awe and wonder if you think about it a bit (though you'll go crazy if you think about it too much).

I mention this stuff to my intro classes, in passing, when I run down the conservation laws at the heart of mechanics. Mostly, I get glassy stares in response, probably the same reaction I'm getting out there in blogland. And, on some level, this really isn't material for science classes, being more the province of philosophers, or late-night dorm-room bull sessions. But it is stuff that scientists have to think about, on one level or another, and impulse to ask these questions springs from the same source that drives most of us into science in the first place.

This having been kicked off by Feynman, I should wrap it up with Feynman, in this case a famous footnote from the Feynman Lectures (by way of James Gleick's Genius):

Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars- mere globs of gas atoms. I, too, can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? The vastness of the heavens stretches my imagination- stuck on this carousel my little eye can catch one-million- year-old light. A vast pattern, of which I am a part.... What is the pattern, or the meaning, or the why? It does not hurt the mystery to know a little about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it.

He's talking about astrophysics there, but the same basic sentiment applies to Quantum Mechanics, and even down to the most basic level of "why does the Universe follow mathematical rules?" We're not really close to the ultimate TRVTH, if such a thing even exists, but the truth we do know is marvelous indeed.

Tags

More like this

Now that we've defined angular momentum, the next equation on our countdown to Newton's birthday tells us what to do with it: This is the Angular Momentum Principle, and as with energy and momentum before it, this relates the time derivative of the angular momentum (that is, how quickly it's…
I'm teaching a junior/senior level elective this term on quantum mechanics. We're using Townsend's A Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics, which starts with spin-1/2 and develops the whole theory in terms of state vectors and matrices. This is kind of an uneasy fit for me, as I'm very much a…
This is the last of the five papers that were part of my Ph.D. thesis, and at ten journal pages in length, it's the longest thing I wrote. It was also the longest-running experiment of any of the things I did, with the data being taken over a period of about three years, between and around other…
“I asked the Zebra, are you black with white stripes? Or white with black stripes? And the zebra asked me, Are you good with bad habits? Or are you bad with good habits? Are you noisy with quiet times? Or are you quiet with noisy times? Are you happy with some sad days? Or are you sad with some…

What is it with Australians? Here you will find the 'frontier spirit' that Americans seem to have lost. Australian researchers are willing to explore unusual ideas and not turn on each other like Americans seem to be doing. A changing speed of light has been predicted for years.
I hope you enjoy the pictures from Tasmania.

Interesting that you include the 2nd law of thermodynamics as a possible candidate for your list. It seems to me more like an emergent property of large systems, and even then only really applicable in limited abstractions (where the world acts like billiard balls, for example). Hardly the stuff of fundamental law; more like Boyle's gas law (okay, more widely applicable that that, I suppose).

I read your link and found that it also "talked down" the law. Anyway, I just found its appearance curious. It seems to be one of the most widely sited yet least understood laws (and it's fair to say I'm probably among the misunderstanders).

By Eric Wallace (not verified) on 30 Jun 2006 #permalink

Well, if the universe didn't have *some* basic rules, then science itself simply wouldn't work. For that matter, it's not clear that the universe itself would "work" -- how durable would, say, a solar system be if the rules of motion kept changing?

As far as the mathematical connection, consider that modern information/ computational theory tells us that any storage or transfer of information, and any computation, requires a minimal amount of energy. Or to put it another way, mathematics does not exist separately from the material world! (So much for Plato's World of Ideals.) Combined with the Godelian principles, chaos/SDIC, and the Halting Problem, this means that a "computation" is in some sense also an "experiment". And this in turn suggests that mathematics is indeed a true science, not some sui generis structure standing outside of our investigations.

More specifically, mathematics is the science of substance- independent phenomena. That is, it deals with processes, rules, and principles that apply under the sole constraint of "relevant parameters", Material substrate, physics regime, scales of time or space, all those matter only insofar as they determine the parameters of the "computation"....

By David Harmon (not verified) on 02 Jul 2006 #permalink

PS: Note that either the Halting Problem or chaos, plus quantum indeterminacy, also squelches mechanistic predeterminism!

By David Harmon (not verified) on 02 Jul 2006 #permalink

I'm teaching, for the first time, a sort of philosophy of science course in the fall. One of the points I intend to make on the first day of class is that most physicists really couldn't care LESS about philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics, or various issues of "epistemology". I'm even preparing the first lecture to include a powerpoint slide with big block letters that says "I HATE PHILOSOPHY". Now I have an official NAME for this particular school of thought - Shut Up and Calculate. I may be sending my students here for homework.

Interesting that you include the 2nd law of thermodynamics as a possible candidate for your list. It seems to me more like an emergent property of large systems, and even then only really applicable in limited abstractions (where the world acts like billiard balls, for example). Hardly the stuff of fundamental law; more like Boyle's gas law (okay, more widely applicable that that, I suppose).

I'm not entirely sure I could defend the inclusion of the second law of thermodynamics-- even at the time, it may very well have been little more than a transparent attempt to hype an earlier post. I don't really recall.

I tend to think of it as something really fundamental just because of a number of passing encounters with fantastically smart people who spend a great deal of time calculating the entropy of information, and suchlike. If they think it's important, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt...

Now I have an official NAME for this particular school of thought - Shut Up and Calculate. I may be sending my students here for homework.

I should note that the phrase is not originally mine, and may or may not have been coined by David Mermin.