This is an extract from the OPIP book. Previously, (B)obby and (A)lice discussed that physics needs entirely new approaches.
A: If we need new approaches the path forward seems clear. We just chuck out the old concepts, play around with new ones, see what works, and we’re done, right?
B: As already hinted, it’s not that easy psychologically. Let’s explore this a little more. Getting rid of deep beliefs that we’ve developed over a long time can be a very difficult process. Our understanding, with all its assumptions, isn’t just a one-level construct on the surface that we can switch like a pair of shoes. It’s ingrained into us, having taken deep roots like an old tree. Tearing out such old trees can be quite difficult.
A: What causes those deep roots?
B: One reason is that our current models work quite well in our everyday lives, so we don’t see a need to question them. We also learn and make progress based on those models, which further solidifies our belief in them. As with anything else, if something is repeated often enough, we believe in it. You could say we’re conditioned to hold these beliefs.
A: In what way?
B: We’re like rats in those experiments, getting zapped whenever we deviate from what the environment expects of us. Imagine you’re a physics student. To get your degree, you have to answer questions correctly (according to the conventional models) in the classroom and pass many exams. Every time you deviate from that, you get “zapped.” This can range anywhere from getting a bad mark, to a frown from the professor who you’re naturally trying to please. This pattern starts much earlier than university. It extends all the way back to school, childhood, or even infancy. After getting zapped so many times, even if you want to think differently, your subconscious mind goes “Nah, I’m not going down that road.”
A: Is that why you suggested earlier that amateurs might have an advantage because they don’t have as much to unlearn?
B: Right. The true challenge in moving forward may lie in how far we can go back. Einstein said, “The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.” Even Niels Bohr, who epitomizes new (quantum) thinking like no one else, needed a 20-year-old Heisenberg to help him question old-school Newtonian mechanics[1], which had already proven so effective at explaining many phenomena.
A: Okay, I’m still not fully convinced about the amateur’s advantage. I think there are many open-minded, sophisticated and professional physicists who would have the mental capabilities to assess proposals in quite a neutral, unbiased way. True, there might be some who struggle for the reasons you stated earlier, but that doesn’t apply to all of them.
B: You’re right, let me specify. I’m now talking about how to discover the new models we need, that is, the creative part. Once these new models are proposed, experienced physicists are undoubtedly in the best position to verify or refute them. The challenge is how to generate those concepts in the first place. I’ve always been bad at painting, but if you showed me the Mona Lisa, I could probably tell you it’s good. The difficult part, however, is to create it.
A: Okay, so how can we “unlearn”?
B: The simplest solution is the one you mentioned: avoid learning incorrect models in the first place. Once we’re down in the rabbit hole, we have to go all the way back and untangle ourselves from a complex web of wrong assumptions. Simplicity is golden here once again. When we were kids, for example, we were not pre-occupied with as many complex thoughts. Do you remember those school days when notes were passed around, asking “You love me? Check yes or no”? Life was simple those days.
A: We should ask a kid for the next big theory in physics?
B: It will likely take more than just avoiding incorrect models to come up with something useful. But in this specific respect, children do have an advantage compared to adults.[2] Perhaps the ideal approach is to combine adult expertise with childlike curiosity.
A: How could we do that?
B: Just start wondering about things again. Kids ask tons of questions and we stop with that once we grow older, probably because we learned to accept things as they are. But without asking questions, we won’t get new insights. It reminds me of Rudyard Kipling’s poem that starts with:
I keep six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.
A: Right. But nobody wants to hear “You’re asking questions like a kid.”
B: Yes, social conditioning gets in the way. “Why are there laws of nature?” “Why is there something rather than nothing?” or “Why do the natural constants have the sizes they have?” are questions that many have forgotten to ask. As Isaac Asimov said, “Insight doesn’t come from ‘Eureka’, but from ‘That’s funny’.”
A: How many of those questions are there?
B: I’m not sure, but I think it would be useful to make a long list of them. How can you look for the next big theory without having clarity of what it is supposed to explain? This will not only make us wonder again, but also change the way we see physics.
A: In which way?
B: When you believe that there are only a few loose ends to tie up, your approach is different. In such a mindset, you are less likely to fundamentally question your existing models. Maybe just one more particle will explain dark matter? Let’s find that, unify the four forces[3], and that should be pretty much it. No, there is still much more to be discovered.
A: You’re sure about that? Don’t our existing models explain so much already?
B: The view you’re expressing now isn’t new at all. At the end of the 19th century, physicists believed exactly that. Max Planck’s professor discouraged him from pursuing a career in physics as he considered physics to be a “saturated field” that didn’t leave room for many discoveries. However, just as there was no need to worry back then, there is no need to worry today about physicists becoming unemployed (as a whole at least). There’s still a lot to explore.
A: Coming back to the topic of unlearning, how else could we achieve it?
B: It sounds simple, but the first step is that you’re willing to unlearn. That’s often the biggest hurdle. Admitting that our current knowledge is wrong is very difficult psychologically. And if you postulate things like “Everything we think we know is wrong,” you can expect almost militant resistance.
A: If unlearning is required for progress, but very difficult at the same time, maybe sometimes it’s not even possible? Especially if it has to happen within the same individual?
B: It’s certainly a challenge, but it doesn’t mean it’s insurmountable. However, you’re alluding to an idea that could indeed be right; maybe generational change will be required to get out of the old thinking frames. Max Planck expressed the idea that “Science advances one funeral at a time.”[4]
A: You cannot end the chapter on such a morbid note.
B: You’re right, and I do believe in the people who are currently alive. I only like to take extreme examples to make my point clear. That said, something has to die—if not the people, then maybe our old ideas.
The book continues by discussing the importance of identifying the right problems to work on. Get it now.
—
[1] For the life of me, I couldn’t find the source for that anymore. I heard it somewhere, I swear. It must have been in a German YouTube video, if I recall correctly. If you find it, please email me at [email protected].
[2] Studies also confirmed that children are more imaginative than adults. In 1968, a longitudinal study tested 1600 children’s ability to come up with new and innovative ideas. Initially four to five-year-olds were tested and those were tested again at ten and fifteen years. Results showed that this ability dwindled from a staggering 98% at four to five years to 12% at fifteen years. The same study in adults showed a mere 2%. Source: Land, G., & Jarman, B. (1993): “Breakpoint and Beyond: Mastering the Future Today” (HarperCollins).
[3] Current physics recognizes four fundamental forces: the strong nuclear force (binding atomic nuclei), the weak nuclear force (enabling radioactive decay), the electromagnetic force (interactions between particles via electromagnetic fields), and the gravitational force (mutual attraction between all things that have mass). The unification of the first three forces would be a “Grand Unified Theory” (GUT). A theory that would also include gravitation would be a “Theory of Everything” (ToE), which is currently considered as the holy grail in physics.
[4] The exact Max Planck quote from his autobiography is, “An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning.”
