This is an extract from the OPIP book. Previously, B(obby) argued to A(lice) that instead of spending a lot of money on doing more of the same and continuing in the same direction, we should stop, take a step back, and think harder and more creatively about how to achieve progress in fundamental physics.
A: Do you have any ideas how this “thinking a bit harder” could take shape?
B: For sure, we need entirely new approaches.
A: What’s wrong with the current approaches?
B: They didn’t work. There has been no significant progress in fundamental physics in 50 years. Let’s ruminate on this a little. Many people have thought about it during that time. How many? Impossible to say exactly of course, but let’s make a high-level estimate. In 2023, there were around 235 million university students globally.[1] Assuming it takes 4 years to get a degree, it means that in 2023, there were around 60 million new students. If the proportion of students to the rest of the population is constant, we can calculate that in the last 50 years, there have been 2.2 billion students in total. Assuming 0.5% of those studied physics[2], there have been 11 million physics students in total. Not all of them think about fundamental physics, so if we assume only 20% do, it would be over two million people.
A: What’s your point?
B: Two million brains is a lot. This number doesn’t even include those who have thought about it but haven’t formally studied physics. Plus, those two million brains are not any random brains. They showed talent for the subject and successfully passed challenging admission exams. There’s great intelligence in that pile of brains.
A: Can I challenge that view a little? These days, if you’re smart, the world is your oyster. You can study business, economics or law, start working at one of the big banks or law firms, or speculate in the stock market. You make a bucketload of money and live happily ever after.
B: Actually, it’s not that easy. I know from experience.
A: Just because you couldn’t do it doesn’t mean it’s difficult. Anyway, my point is that those lucrative options exist. Which smart person, in their right mind, enters physics (or politics[3]) and stays at university for research, only to earn low wages, never knowing where their next meal is coming from? I mean, how smart is that?
B: I think we’re supposed to argue now for entering the field of physics, not against it.
A: I think it’s important that we look at it from all sides, and also listen to critical voices.[4] We can still argue for thinking about physics. You don’t have to study it at university.
B: While there is some truth to that, you’re not giving universities enough credit. You’ll also need the hard-learned tools, e.g., math, at some point. It’s not just all philosophy. Also, at university you have dedicated time to think about such questions—it’s your job, after all—and don’t get distracted with other things, like having to earn a living in other ways.
A: Let’s get back to your original trail of thought. You’re saying that there have been tons of intelligent brains working on it. For two million people, with an average weight of 1.3-1.4 kg per adult brain, that amounts to over 2,500 tons, or the equivalent of 1,300 BMW 8 Series Convertible (G14)[5]. Still, we couldn’t figure it out.
B: Yes, and that points to some fundamental issues. Either a) there is no solution, b) a solution exists within current approaches and we simply need to invest more resources, or c) our current methods are fundamentally flawed. I don’t believe in a) or b), so I bet on c).
A: If so many people have thought about it, then shouldn’t at least a small percentage of those have also explored entirely new approaches?
B: Some may have, but most simply follow established paradigms and what they’ve been taught.
A: Why is that?
B: Following is easy and doesn’t require any thinking. It avoids confrontation too. We’re naturally inclined to follow. Following happens on several levels. We follow those we respect (authorities). We follow the masses: if many say the same, we interpret that consensus as proof, not realizing that they may all be parroting one another.[6] We also follow dead people (traditions). But above all, we love to follow the person we adore the most: ourselves. If we used to do something in a certain way, and the consequences weren’t too negative (it didn’t kill us), we tend to stick with it.
A: Probably, yes.
B: Also, it’s important to understand that if you want to have a career in physics, you absolutely must agree—to a high degree—with what current physics says. Otherwise, you’re that strange outsider who nobody takes seriously. Your career depends on judgement by other people. If you want recognition, you must play ball, and go with the crowd.
A: What about professors who got tenure? They have some freedom.
B: That’s true, they have more flexibility. However, such cases are few and far between, and by that time, they’re probably too entangled in established thinking frameworks, making it hard to come up with entirely new approaches.
A: But isn’t it obvious that we should try out new approaches? What we tried so far didn’t work, so naturally, we got to try something new.
B: I compliment you if you think that way, but most don’t. Many pay lip service to it, but quickly fall back to the old way of doing things.
A: Maybe they would want to, but they don’t see any alternative approaches?
B: On one hand this is true, on the other it may also be an excuse. If you’re deeply in love with the old way of doing things, you may not give yourself a chance to find alternatives. Again, it’s all psychology.
A: So, you’re claiming that many physicists know that new approaches are needed, but they don’t act accordingly? That would be a clear contradiction. It would surprise me—physicists are mostly highly rational beings.
B: Most are, but they’re still only humans. We’re not only driven by our rational mind, but by our emotions and instincts that are deeply ingrained into us. We cannot just override those with what we know on a conscious level. An example from everyday life: when I see products that offer a soon-to-expire discount, I feel compelled to buy them. I know it’s a trick, we apply it in our business all the time. But it still works on me. On a rational level I understand what’s going on, but on a deeper, emotional level I don’t.[7] Maybe the same effects are at play when physicists know new approaches are needed, but don’t act accordingly.
A: Okay, so while rationally they know it, emotions get into the way?
B: Yes, but let’s not only blame the emotions. I believe there are also rational flaws. Let me ask you: why do we like the old ways of doing things?
A: Because often in history, they worked.
B: They worked at doing what?
A: Achieving progress in physics.
B: Right. So if we want to achieve more of the same (progress in physics), we just do more of the same (applying the old methods), right?
A: Naturally.
B: There’s a thinking mistake in that line of reasoning. Can you tell what it is?
A: No.
B: I’m sure you can do better than that.
A: Please, don’t be a know-it-all[8], and stop the mansplaining. Just tell me what you think.
B: The above line of reasoning contains the assumption that progress in physics is one homogeneous, consistent and uniform entity. While in fact, it’s varied, heterogenous, and multifaceted. We just slap the name “progress in physics” over it, conveying the feeling that it can be achieved by following the same approaches. While in fact, it contains entirely different problems that call for different approaches.
A: Please elaborate.
B: Let’s use an analogy. Have you ever wondered why we don’t have a cure for cancer yet?
A: No.
B: I did. A key part of the answer is that cancer is an umbrella term, encompassing many different types of diseases. The outcome is the same (uncontrolled cell growth) but under the hood entirely different things are going on. And not only is there a wide variation between the different types of cancer, but the same type of cancer in different people can behave very differently. That’s why there is a trend toward precision medicine that tailors treatment to individual patients. You could also ask, “Why isn’t there a cure for all human diseases yet?” which makes the point even more evident.
A: Not really. What is your point?
B: If you regard problems as identical, or similar, you will always fall back to applying the same methods that worked on other problems you deem identical or similar. By now I guess my point is clear, but let me take another analogy from business, be it only because I like talking business. It’s sometimes said that the path to a billion is an entirely different path than that to a million. It’s not that you just have to run the tracks to a million more often, or faster, or anything like that. It’s an entirely different track. It’s easy to miss this, because the final impact gets measured on the same, linear, one-dimensional scale. But it’s a scale only invented by humans, a shadow on the wall, that hides the very varied underlying mechanics.
A: What does this mean for physics?
B: No matter if it’s about medicine, business, physics or any other discipline: success is multifaceted, and different types of successes are different animals, requiring entirely different approaches. It’s safe to assume that the more fundamental the prospective advancements, the more different the underlying thinking frame has to be. This includes using entirely new tools. For example, Newton co-invented the mathematical framework of calculus (alongside Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz) to describe motion, change, and other physical phenomena in a precise and systematic manner. Einstein utilized non-Euclidean geometry to formulate General Relativity, while Heisenberg employed matrix mechanics in the development of quantum physics.[9]
A: If that is so, I sense a dilemma. On the one hand, we have to be grateful for the immense progress the “old” physics brought us, on the other hand we have to question it at the core.
B: Right. By standing on the shoulders of giants, we increased our visibility significantly, and should be thankful for that. However, also giants can be a bit beef-witted at times (consider Goliath or Frankenstein’s monster), and not flexible enough to undergo the required changes. As long as we see the prospective new advances as a logical continuation of what we did in the past, they’ll never happen.
A: Challenging giants can be intimidating. I mean, they’re huge.
B: Yes, that’s the point. Paradoxically, the larger the success, the more difficult it could make future advances. Big successes are often accompanied by a strong aura of unquestionability which is detrimental to progress in physics. It may not be a coincidence that after the fountain of discoveries in the 20th century a long period of low tide followed. Some physicists claim that those advances got us stuck in wrong thinking frames which it is difficult to get out of. The discoveries were groundbreaking, turning the earth upside down, but by doing that, they may have inadvertently dug the graves for future advances.
A: You’re trying really hard to be poetic now.
B: I’m doing my best.
To read the full book, get it now.
—
[2] In the United States, for the academic year 2018-2019, 9,193 bachelor’s degrees were awarded in physics (Opip.lol/physics-bachelors) out of a total of around 2,012,854 bachelor’s degrees. This represents roughly 0.46% of all bachelor’s degrees awarded in that year.
[3] I tried hard to omit this comment, but couldn’t.
[4] Read Jonathan Katz’s classic “Don’t become a scientist!” from 1999. For an updated reflection on Katz’s wisdom, have a look at Matthew Thomson’s “’Don’t Become a Scientist’ 20 Years Later”. Also see “Your future with physics: A guide for young people” from the Institute of Physics.
[5] See Opip.lol/cool. I didn’t get any commissions from BMW for mentioning this, but if the OPIP book takes off, I’ll ask for it for sure.
[6] A notable example is Bohr’s response in 1935 to the famous “EPR paper,” in which Einstein articulated his skepticism about the “spooky action at a distance” suggested by quantum mechanics. Bohr’s rebuttal was extensively cited and played a significant role in shaping discussions on the Copenhagen Interpretation. One of the standard books that had Bohr’s response printed was Quantum Theory and Measurement by John Archibald Wheeler and Wojciech Hubert Zurek, which served as the main resource for accessing Bohr’s paper before the widespread use of the internet. However, it was many years after the book’s publication until anyone noticed that two pages in Bohr’s paper had been accidentally reversed. This oversight suggests that numerous physicists who cited the paper and based their arguments on it might not have read it thoroughly, if at all. This incident not only illustrates that many physicists followed Bohr but also indicates that they did so without critical examination.
[7] A prime example of emotions trumping rationality is the case of televangelist Peter Popoff. He astonished audiences by claiming he received divine revelations about their personal details, illnesses, and addresses. However, skeptic James Randi and his team unveiled that Popoff was using an earpiece to get information from his wife. This information was previously collected from prayer cards filled out by attendees. When this deceit was exposed, many of Popoff’s followers directed their anger not at him, but at those who revealed the scam. They felt that their hopes had been dashed. This incident underscores that many people prioritize happiness over logic. See Opip.lol/popoff
[8] I gave in to my editor’s insistence and used this less offensive term instead.
[9] Revolutionary works may also employ novel tools in how information is conveyed, such as a dialogue style instead of the traditional academic style (wink wink). Although, as is often the case, someone has done it before: Galileo’s “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” presents an engaging exchange between proponents of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems.
