The role of superconductivity in development of the Standard Model

In 1986, Steven Weinberg published an article, Superconductivity for Particular Theorists, in which he stated

"No one did more than Nambu to bring the idea of spontaneously broken symmetries to the attention of elementary particle physicists. And, as he acknowledged in his ground-breaking 1960 article  "Axial Current Conservation in Weak Interactions'', Nambu was guided in this work by an analogy with the theory of superconductivity,..."

In the 1960 PRL, referenced by Weinberg, Nambu states that in the BCS theory, as refined by Bogoliubov, [and Anderson]

"gauge invariance, the energy gap, and the collective excitations are logically related to each other as was shown by the author. [Y. Nambu, Phys. Rev. 117, 648 (1960)] In the present case we have only to replace them by (chiral) (gamma_5) invariance, baryon mass, and the mesons." 

This connection is worked out explicitly in two papers in 1961. The first is

Dynamical Model of Elementary Particles Based on an Analogy with Superconductivity. I

Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio

They acknowledge, 

"that the model treated here is not realistic enough to be compared with the actual nucleon problem. Our purpose was to show that a new possibility exists for field theory to be richer and more complex than has been hitherto envisaged,"

Hence, I consider this to be a toy model for an emergent phenomena.

The model consists of a massless fermion field with a quartic interaction that has chiral invariance, i.e., unchanged by global gauge transformations associated with the gamma_5 matrix. (The Lagrangian is given above.) At the mean-field level, this symmetry is broken. Excitations include massless bosons (associated with the symmetry breaking and similar to those found earlier by Goldstone) and bound fermion pairs. It was conjectured that these could be analogues of mesons and baryons, respectively. The model was proposed before quarks and QCD. Now, the fermion degrees of freedom would be identified with quarks, and the model illustrates the dynamical generation of quark masses. When generalised to include SU(2) or SU(3) symmetry the model is considered to be an effective field theory for QCD, such as chiral effective theory.

My review article on emergence

I just posted on the arXiv a long review article on emergence

Emergence: from physics to biology, sociology, and computer science

The abstract is below.

I welcome feedback. 

------

Many systems of interest to scientists involve a large number of interacting parts and the whole system can have properties that the individual parts do not. The system is qualitatively different to its parts. More is different. I take this novelty as the defining characteristic of an emergent property. Many other characteristics have been associated with emergence are reviewed, including universality, order, complexity, unpredictability, irreducibility, diversity, self-organisation, discontinuities, and singularities. However, it has not been established whether these characteristics are necessary or sufficient for novelty. A wide range of examples are given to show how emergent phenomena are ubiquitous across most sub-fields of physics and many areas of biology and social sciences. Emergence is central to many of the biggest scientific and societal challenges today. Emergence can be understood in terms of scales (energy, time, length, complexity) and the associated stratification of reality. At each stratum (level) there is a distinct ontology (properties, phenomena, processes, entities, and effective interactions) and epistemology (theories, concepts, models, and methods). This stratification of reality leads to semi-autonomous scientific disciplines and sub-disciplines. A common challenge is understanding the relationship between emergent properties observed at the macroscopic scale (the whole system) and what is known about the microscopic scale: the components and their interactions. A key and profound insight is to identify a relevant emergent mesoscopic scale (i.e., a scale intermediate between the macro- and micro- scales) at which new entities emerge and interact with one another weakly. In different words, modular structures may emerge at the mesoscale. Key theoretical methods are the development and study of effective theories and toy models. Effective theories describe phenomena at a particular scale and sometimes can be derived from more microscopic descriptions. Toy models involve minimal degrees of freedom, interactions, and parameters. Toy models are amenable to analytical and computational analysis and may reveal the minimal requirements for an emergent property to occur. The Ising model is an emblematic toy model that elucidates not just critical phenomena but also key characteristics of emergence. Many examples are given from condensed matter physics to illustrate the characteristics of emergence. A wide range of areas of physics are discussed, including chaotic dynamical systems, fluid dynamics, nuclear physics, and quantum gravity. The ubiquity of emergence in other fields is illustrated by neural networks, protein folding, and social segregation. An emergent perspective matters for scientific strategy, as it shapes questions, choice of research methodologies, priorities, and allocation of resources. Finally, the elusive goal of the design and control of emergent properties is considered.

Thermodynamics and emergence

Novelty. 

Temperature and entropy are emergent properties. Classically, they are defined by the zeroth and second laws of thermodynamics, respectively. The individual particles that make up a system in thermodynamic equilibrium do not have these properties. Kadanoff provided an example illustrating the qualitative difference between macro- and micro-perspectives. He pointed out how deterministic behaviour can emerge at the macroscale from stochastic behaviour at the microscale. The many individual molecules in a dilute gas can be viewed as undergoing stochastic motion. However, collectively they are described by an equation of state such as the ideal gas law.

 Primas gave a technical argument, involving C* algebras, that temperature is emergent: it belongs to an algebra of contextual observables but not to the algebra of intrinsic observables.44 Following this perspective, Bishop argued that temperature and the chemical potential are (contextually) emergent.

Intra-stratum closure. 

The laws of thermodynamics, the equations of thermodynamics (such as TdS = dU + pdV), and state functions such as S(U,V), provide a complete description of processes involving equilibrium states. A knowledge of microscopic details, such as the atomic constituents or forces of interaction, is not necessary for the description.

Irreducibility. 

A common view is that thermodynamics can be derived from statistical mechanics. However, this is contentious. David Deutsch claimed that the second law of thermodynamics is an “emergent law”: it cannot be derived from microscopic laws, like the principle of testability.

Lieb and Yngvason stated that the derivation from statistical mechanics of the law of entropy increase “is a goal that has so far eluded the deepest thinkers.”  In contrast, Weinberg claimed that Maxwell, Boltzmann, and Gibbs “showed that the principles of thermodynamics could in fact be deduced mathematically, by an analysis of the probabilities of different configurations… Nevertheless, even though thermodynamics has been explained in terms of particles and forces, it continues to deal with emergent concepts like temperature and entropy that lose all meaning on the level of individual particles.” (Dreams of A Final Theory, pages 40-41)

I agree that thermodynamic properties (e.g., equations of state, the temperature dependence of heat capacity, and phase transitions) can be deduced from statistical mechanics. However, thermodynamic principles, such as the second law, are not thermodynamic properties. Furthermore, these thermodynamic principles are required to justify the equations of statistical mechanics, such as the partition function, that are used to calculate thermodynamic properties. 

Macro hints of microscopics.

The Sackur-Tetrode equation for the entropy of an ideal gas hinted at the quantisation of phase space. The Gibbs paradox hinted that fundamental particles are indistinguishable. The third law of thermodynamics hints at quantum degeneracy.

Emergence and quantum theories of gravity

Einstein’s theory of General Relativity successfully describes gravity and large scales of length and mass. In contrast, quantum theory describes small scales of length and mass. Emergence is central to most attempts to unify the two theories. Before considering specific examples, it is useful to make some distinctions.

First, a quantum theory of gravity is not necessarily the same as a theory to unify gravity with the three other forces described by the Standard Model. Whether the two problems are inextricable is unknown.

Second, there are two distinct possibilities on how classical gravity might emerge from a quantum theory. In Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, space-time and gravity are intertwined. Consequently, the two possibilities are as follows.

i. Space-time is not emergent. Classical General Relativity emerges from an underlying quantum field theory describing fields at small length scales, probably comparable to the Planck length.

ii. Space-time emerges from some underlying granular structure. In some limit, classical gravity emerges with the space-time continuum. 

Third, there are "bottom-up" and "top-down" approaches to discovering how classical gravity emerges from an underlying quantum theory, as was emphasised by Bei Lok Hu.

Finally, there is the possibility that quantum theory itself is emergent, as discussed in an earlier post about the quantum measurement problem. Some proposals of Emergent Quantum Mechanics (EQM) attempt to include gravity.

I now mention several different approaches to quantum gravity and for each point out how they fit into the distinctions above.

Gravitons and semi-classical theory

A simple bottom-up approach is to start with classical General Relativity and consider gravitational waves as the normal modes of oscillation of the space-time continuum. They have a linear dispersion relation and move with the speed of light. They are analogous to sound waves in an elastic medium. Semi-classical quantisation of gravitational waves leads to gravitons which are a massless spin-2 field. They are the analogue of phonons in a crystal or photons in the electromagnetic vacuum. However, this reveals nothing about an underlying quantum theory, just as phonons with a linear dispersion relation reveal nothing about the underlying crystal structure.

On the other hand, one can start with a massless spin-2 quantum field and consider how it scatters off massive particles. In the 1960s, Weinberg showed that gauge invariance of the scattering amplitudes implied the equivalence principle (inertial and gravitational mass are identical) and the Einstein field equations. In a sense, this is a top-down approach, as it is a derivation of General Relativity from an underlying quantum theory. In passing, I mention Weinberg used a similar approach to derive charge conservation and Maxwell’s equations of classical electromagnetism, and classical Yang-Mills theory for non-abelian gauge fields. 

Weinberg pointed out that this could go against his reductionist claim that in the hierarchy of the sciences, the arrows of the explanation always point down, saying “sometimes it isn't so clear which way the arrows of explanation point… Which is more fundamental, general relativity or the existence of particles of mass zero and spin two?”

More recently, Weinberg discussed General Relativity as an effective field theory

"... we should not despair of applying quantum field theory to gravitation just because there is no renormalizable theory of the metric tensor that is invariant under general coordinate transformations. It increasingly seems apparent that the Einstein–Hilbert Lagrangian √gR is just the least suppressed term in the Lagrangian of an effective field theory containing every possible generally covariant function of the metric and its derivatives..."

This is a bottom-up approach. Weinberg then went on to discuss a top-down  approach:

“it is usually assumed that in the quantum theory of gravitation, when Λ reaches some very high energy, of the order of 10^15 to 10^18 GeV, the appropriate degrees of freedom are no longer the metric and the Standard Model fields, but something very different, perhaps strings... But maybe not..."

String theory 

Versions of string theory from the 1980s aimed to unify all four forces. They were formulated in terms of nine spatial dimensions and a large internal symmetry group, such as SO(32), where supersymmetric strings were the fundamental units. In the low-energy limit, vibrations of the strings are identified with elementary particles in four-dimensional space-time. A particle with mass zero and spin two appears as an immediate consequence of the symmetries of the string theory. Hence, this was originally claimed to be a quantum theory of gravity. However, subsequent developments have found that there are many alternative string theories and it is not possible to formulate the theory in terms of a unique vacuum.

AdS-CFT correspondence

In the context of string theory, this correspondence conjectures a connection (a dual relation) between classical gravity in Anti-deSitter space-time (AdS) and quantum conformal field theories (CFTs), including some gauge theories. This connection could be interpreted in two different ways. One is that space-time emerges from the quantum theory. Alternatively, the quantum theory emerges from the classical gravity theory.   This ambiguity of interpretation has been highlighted by Alyssa Ney, a philosopher of physics. In other words, it is ambiguous which of the two sides of the duality is the more fundamental. Witten has argued that AdS-CFT suggests that gauge symmetries are emergent. However, I cannot follow his argument.

Seiberg reviewed different approaches, within the string theory community, that lead to spacetime as emergent. An example of a toy model is a matrix model for quantum mechanics [which can be viewed as a zero-dimensional field theory]. Perturbation expansions can be viewed as discretised two-dimensional surfaces. In a large N limit, two-dimensional space and general covariance (the starting point for general relativity) both emerge. Thus, this shows how both two-dimensional gravity and spacetime can be emergent. However, this type of emergence is distinct from how low-energy theories emerge. Seiberg also notes that there are no examples of toy models where time (which is associated with locality and causality) is emergent.

Loop quantum gravity 

This is a top-down approach where both space-time and gravity emerge together from a granular structure, sometimes referred to as "spin foam" or a “spin network”, and has been reviewed by Rovelli. The starting point is Ashtekar’s demonstration that General Relativity can be described using the phase space of an SU(2) Yang-Mills theory. A boundary in four-dimensional space-time can be decomposed into cells and this can be used to define a dual graph (lattice) Gamma. The gravitational field on this discretised boundary is represented by the Hilbert space of a lattice SU(2) Yang-Mills theory. The quantum numbers used to define a basis for this Hilbert space are the graph Gamma,  the “spin” [SU(2) quantum number] associated with the face of each cell, and the volumes of the cells. The Planck length limits the size of the cells. In the limit of the continuum and then of large spin, or vice versa, one obtains General Relativity.

Quantum thermodynamics of event horizons

A bottom-up approach was taken by Padmanabhan. He emphasises Boltzmann's insight: "matter can only store and transfer heat because of internal degrees of freedom". In other words, if something has a temperature and entropy then it must have a microstructure. He does this by considering the connection between event horizons in General Relativity and the temperature of the thermal radiation associated with them. He frames his research as attempting to estimate Avogadro’s number for space-time.

The temperature and entropy associated with event horizons has been calculated for the following specific space-times:

a. For accelerating frames of reference (Rindler space-time) there is an event horizon which exhibits Unruh radiation with a temperature that was calculated by Fulling, Davies and Unruh.

b. The black hole horizon in the Schwarzschild metric has the temperature of Hawking radiation.

c. The cosmological horizon in deSitter space is associated with a temperature proportional to the Hubble constant H, as discussed in detail by Gibbons and Hawking.

Padmanabhan considers the number of degrees of freedom on the boundary of the event horizon, Ns, and in the bulk, Nb. He argues for the holographic principle that Ns = Nb. On the boundary surface, there is one degree of freedom associated with every Planck area, Ns = A/Lp2, where Lp is the Planck length and A is the surface area, which is related to the entropy of the horizon, as first discussed by Bekenstein and Hawking. In the bulk, classical equipartition of energy is assumed so the bulk energy E = Nb k T/2. 

Padmanabhan gives an alternative perspective on cosmology through a novel derivation of the dynamic equations for the scale factor R(t) in the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric of the universe in General Relativity. His starting point is a simple argument leading to 

V is the Hubble volume, 4\pi/3H^3, where H is the Hubble constant, and Lp is the Planck length. The right-hand side is zero for the deSitter universe, which is predicted to be the asymptotic state of our current universe.

He presents an argument that the cosmological constant is related to the Planck length, leading to the expression  

where mu is of order unity and gives a value consistent with observation.

Superconductivity: a poster child for emergence

Superconductivity beautifully illustrates the characteristics of emergent properties.

Novelty. 

Distinct properties of the superconducting state include zero resistivity, the Meissner effect, and the Josephson effect. The normal metallic state does not exhibit these properties.

At low temperatures, solid tin exhibits the property of superconductivity. However, a single atom of tin is not a superconductor. A small number of tin atoms has an energy gap due to pairing interactions, but not bulk superconductivity.

There is more than one superconducting state of matter. The order parameter may have the same symmetry as a non-trivial representation of the crystal symmetry and it can have spin singlet or triplet symmetry. Type II superconductors in a magnetic field have an Abrikosov vortex lattice, another distinct state of matter.

Unpredictability. 

Even though the underlying laws describing the interactions between electrons in a crystal have been known for one hundred years, the discovery of superconductivity in many specific materials was not predicted. Even after the BCS theory was worked out in 1957 the discovery of superconductivity in intermetallic compounds, cuprates, organic charge transfer salts, fullerenes, and heavy fermion compounds was not predicted.71

Order and structure. 

In the superconducting state, the electrons become ordered in a particular way. The motion of the electrons relative to one another is not independent but correlated. Long-range order is reflected in the generalised rigidity, which is responsible for the zero resistivity. Properties of individual atoms (e.g., NMR chemical shifts) are different in vacuum, metallic state, and superconducting state.

Universality. 

Properties of superconductivity such as zero electrical resistance, the expulsion of magnetic fields, quantisation of magnetic flux, and the Josephson effects are universal. The existence and description of these properties are independent of the chemical and structural details of the material in which the superconductivity is observed. This is why the Ginzburg-Landau theory works so well. In BCS theory, the temperature dependences of thermodynamic and transport properties are given by universal functions of T/Tc where Tc is the transition temperature. Experimental data is consistent with this for a wide range of superconducting materials, particularly elemental metals for which the electron-phonon coupling is weak.

Modularity at the mesoscale. 

Emergent entities include Cooper pairs and vortices. There are two associated emergent length scales, typically much larger than the microscopic scales defined by the interatomic spacing or the Fermi wavelength of electrons. The coherence length is associated with the energy cost of spatial variations in the order parameter. It defines the extent of the proximity effect where the surface of a non-superconducting metal can become superconducting when it is in electrical contact with a superconductor. The coherence length turns out to be of the order of the size of Cooper pairs in BCS theory.  The second length scale is the magnetic penetration depth (also known as the London length) which determines the extent that an external magnetic field can penetrate the surface of a superconductor. It is determined by the superfluid density. The relative size of the coherence length and the penetration depth determines whether  the formation of an Abrikosov vortex lattice is stable in a large enough magnetic field.

Quasiparticles. 

The elementary excitations are Bogoliubov quasiparticles that are qualitatively different to particle and hole excitations in a normal metal. They are a coherent superposition of a particle and hole excitation (relative to the Fermi sea), have zero charge and only exist above the energy gap. The mixed particle-hole character of the quasiparticles is reflected in the phenomenom of Andreev reflection.

Singularities. 

Superconductivity is a non-perturbative phenomenon. In BCS theory the transition temperature, Tc, and the excitation energy gap are a non-analytic function of the electron-phonon coupling constant lambda, Tc \sim exp(-1/lambda).

A singular structure is also evident in the properties of the current-current correlation function. Interchange of the limits of zero wavevector and zero frequency do not commute, this being intimately connected with the non-zero superfluid density.

Effective theories.

These are illustrated in the Figure below. The many-particle Schrodinger equation describes electrons and atomic nuclei interacting with one another. Many-body theory can be used to justify considering the electrons as a jellium liquid of non-interacting fermions interacting with phonons. Bardeen, Pines, and Frohlich showed that for that system there is an effective interaction between fermions that is attractive. The BCS theory includes a truncated version of this attractive interaction. Gorkov showed that Ginzburg-Landau theory could be derived from BCS theory. The London equations can be derived from Ginzburg-Landau theory. The Josephson equations only include the phase of order parameter to describe a pair of coupled superconductors.

The historical of the development of theories mostly went downwards. London preceded Ginzburg-Landau which preceded BCS theory. Today for specific materials where superconductivity is known to be due to electron-phonon coupling and the electron gas is weakly correlated one can now work upwards using computational methods such as Density Functional Theory (DFT) for Superconductors or the Eliashberg theory with input parameters calculated from DFT-based methods. However, in reality this has debatable success. The superconducting transition temperatures calculated typically vary with the approximations used in the DFT such as the choice of functional and basis set, and often differ from experimental results by the order of 50 percent. This illustrates how hard prediction is for emergent phenomena.

Potential and pitfalls of mean-field theory. 

Mean-field approximations and theories can provide a useful guide as what emergent properties are possible and as a starting point to map out properties such as phase diagrams. For some systems and properties, they work incredibly well and for others they fail spectacularly and are misleading. 

Ginzburg-Landau theory and BCS theory are both mean-field theories. For three-dimensional superconductors they work extremely well. However, in two dimensions as long-range order and breaking of a continuous symmetry cannot occur and the physics associated with the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless transition occurs. Nevertheless, the Ginzburg-Landau theory provides the background to understand the justification for the XY model and the presence of vortices to proceed. Similarly, the BCS theory fails for strongly correlated electron systems, but a version of the BCS theory does give a surprisingly good description of the superconducting state.

Cross-fertilisation of fields. 

Concepts and methods developed for the theory of superconductivity bore fruit in other sub-fields of physics including nuclear physics, elementary particles, and astrophysics. Considering the matter fields (associated with the electrons) coupled to electromagnetic fields (a U(1) gauge theory) the matter fields can be integrated out to give a theory in which the photon has mass. This is a perspective on the Meissner effect in which the magnitude of an external magnetic field decays exponentially as it penetrates a superconductor. This idea of a massless gauge field acquiring a mass due to spontaneous symmetry breaking was central to steps towards the Standard Model made by Nambu and by Weinberg. 

A very effective Hamiltonian in nuclear physics

Atomic nuclei are complex quantum many-body systems. Effective theories have helped provide a better understanding of them. The best-known are the shell model, the (Aage) Bohr-Mottelson theory of non-spherical nuclei, and the liquid drop model. Here I introduce the Interacting Boson Model (IBM), which provides somewhat of a microscopic basis for the Bohr-Mottelson theory. Other effective theories in nuclear physics are chiral perturbation theory, Weinberg's theory for nucleon-pion interactions, and Wigner's random matrix theory.

The shell model has similarities to microscopic models in atomic physics. A major achievement is it explains the origins of magic numbers, i.e., nuclei with atomic numbers 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82, and 126 are particularly stable because they have closed shells. Other nuclei can then be described theoretically as an inert closed shell plus valence nucleons that interact with a mean-field potential due to the core nuclei and then with one another via effective interactions.

For medium to heavy nuclei the Bohr-Mottelson model describes collective excitations including transitions in the shape of nuclei.

An example of the trends in the low-lying excitation spectrum  to explain is shown in the figure below. The left spectrum is for nucleus with close to a magic number of nuclei and the right one for an almost half-filled shell. R_4/2 is the ratio of the energies of the J=4+ state to that of the 2+ state, relative to the ground state. B(E2) is the strength of the quadrupole transition between the 2+ state and the ground state.

The Interacting Boson Model (IBM) is surprisingly simple and successful. It illustrates the importance of quasi-particles, builds on the stability of closed shells, and neglects many degrees of freedom. It describes even-even nuclei, i.e., nuclei with an even number of protons and an even number of neutrons. The basic entities in the theory are pairs of nucleons. These are taken to be either an s-wave state or a d-wave state. There are five d-wave states (corresponding to the 2J+1 possible states of total angular momentum with J=2). Each state is represented by a boson creation operator and so the Hilbert space is six-dimensional. If the states are degenerate [which they are not] the model has U(6) symmetry.

The IBM Hamiltonian is written in terms of the most general possible combinations of the boson operators. This has a surprisingly simple form.

Note that it involves only four parameters. For a given nucleus these parameters can be fixed from experiment, and in principle calculated from the shell model. The Hamiltonian can be written in a form that gives physical insight, connects to the Bohr-Mottelson model and is amenable to a group theoretical analysis that makes calculation and understanding of the energy spectrum relatively simple.

Central to the group theoretical analysis is considering subalgebra chains as shown below

 

An example of an energy spectrum is shown below.

The fuzzy figures are taken from a helpful Physics Today article by Casten and Feng from 1984 (Aside: the article discusses an extension of the IBM involving supersymmetry, but I don't think that has been particularly fruitful).

The figure below connects the different parameter regimes of the model to the different subalgebra chains.

The nucleotide chart below has entries that have colour shading corresponding to their parameter values for the IBM model according to the symmetry triangle above.

The different vertices of the triangle correspond to different nuclear geometries and allow a connection to Aage Bohr's model for the surface excitations. 

This is discussed in a nice review article, which includes the figure above.

Quantum phase transitions in shape of nuclei

Pavel Cejnar, Jan Jolie, and Richard F. Casten

Aside: one thing that is not clear to me from the article concerns questions that arise because the nucleus has a finite number of degrees of freedom. Are the symmetries actually broken or is there tunneling between degenerate ground states?   

Steven Weinberg's radical change of mind

What is a fundamental theory? As we go to smaller and smaller distances and higher energies we keep finding new entities: atoms, electrons, nuclei, neutrons, protons, quarks, gluons, ...When will it stop?

If we look at a theory, such as a quantum field theory, at a particular energy and length scale, there may be hints that something is going on, such as the existence of new entities, at higher energies. One way to approach this problem is through the renormalisation group and to look at how coupling constants behave as the energy increases. If they start to blow up (diverge) is that a hint of something? But, this requires starting with a renormalisable theory...

An alternative approach is to start with an effective theory that one assumes [hypothesises] is valid at some limited energy scale. This goes against a previous dogma that one should only study renormalisable theories. Amongst elementary particle theorists, led by Steven Weinberg, there was a significant shift in perspective in the 1970s.

In a paper published in 2016, Effective field theory, past and future, Steven Weinberg reflected on how he changed his mind about renormalisability being a fundamental requirement for quantum field theories and how he came to the view that the Standard Model should be viewed as an effective field theory. Here are some quotes from the article. He first describes how in the 1960s he developed a field theory to describe the interactions of nucleons and pions.

"During this whole period, effective field theories appeared as only a device for more easily reproducing the results of current algebra. It was difficult to take them seriously as dynamical theories, because the derivative couplings that made them useful in the lowest order of perturbation theory also made them nonrenormalizable, thus apparently closing off the possibility of using these theories in higher order. 

My thinking about this began to change in 1976. I was invited to give a series of lectures at Erice that summer, and took the opportunity to learn the theory of critical phenomena by giving lectures about it. In preparing these lectures, I was struck by Kenneth Wilson’s device of “integrating out” short-distance degrees of freedom by introducing a variable ultraviolet cutoff, ...

Non-renormalizable theories, I realized, are just as renormalizable as renormalizable theories.

For me in 1979, the answer involved a radical reconsideration of the nature of quantum field theory.

The advent of effective field theories generated changes in point of view and suggested new techniques of calculation that propagated out to numerous areas of physics, some quite far removed from particle physics. Notable here is the use of the power-counting arguments of effective field theory to justify the approximations made in the BCS theory of superconductivity. Instead of counting powers of small momenta, one must count powers of the departures of momenta from the Fermi surface. Also, general features of theories of inflation have been clarified by re-casting these theories as effective field theories of the inflaton and gravitational fields. 

Perhaps the most important lesson from chiral dynamics was that we should keep an open mind about renormalizability. The renormalizable Standard Model of elementary particles may itself be just the first term in an effective field theory that contains every possible interaction allowed by Lorentz invariance and the SU (3) × SU (2) × U (1) gauge symmetry, only with the non-renormalizable terms suppressed by negative powers of some very large mass M...

... we should not despair of applying quantum field theory to gravitation just because there is no renormalizable theory of the metric tensor that is invariant under general coordinate transformations. It increasingly seems apparent that the Einstein–Hilbert Lagrangian √gR is just the least suppressed term in the Lagrangian of an effective field theory containing every possible generally covariant function of the metric and its derivatives...

it is usually assumed that in the quantum theory of gravitation, when Λ reaches some very high energy, of the order of 10^15 to 10^18 GeV, the appropriate degrees of freedom are no longer the metric and the Standard Model fields, but something very different, perhaps strings...

But maybe not..."

In 2021 Weinberg gave a talk, with a similar point of view, which inaugurated an international seminar series [online during covid-19]. 

In response to that talk, Peter Woit has a blog post where he objects to Weinberg's point of view that the Standard Model is "just" an effective theory, only valid at low energies.

Reviews of Modern Physics recently published a review that discussed how Weinberg's perspective is worked out in detail.

The standard model effective field theory at work

Gino Isidori, Felix Wilsch, and Daniel Wyler

The discussion above fits naturally with an emergentist perspective: reality is stratified. Effective theories at one strata may have singularities around boundaries between strata, and new entities emerge, both physically and theoretically, as one moves to the next higher or lower strata.

Do arrows of explanation point down or up?

The figure above shows the stratification of objects that interest physicists. As one goes down the chain length and time scales get smaller and energy scales get larger.

A reductionist seeks to explain the objects at each strata in terms of the objects that occur at the next lower strata.

In 1987 Steven Weinberg gave a talk at the University of Cambridge at the Tercentenary Celebration of Newton's Principia.

The talk was published in Nature. Newtonianism, Reductionism, and the Art of Congressional Testimony

Part of the talk is about Weinberg's testimony to a US Congressional Committee making the case for the construction of the SSC (Superconducting Super Collider). Phil Anderson spoke against the SSC.

Weinberg argued that the SSC should be built because particle physics is "in some sense more fundamental than other areas of physics." He claims that this is because "the arrows of explanation point down", as in the diagram shown above.

A contrasting perspective is that of Andrew Steane. His book, Science and Humanity, contains the figure below.

In his picture of the explanatory relationship between physics, chemistry, and biology, Steane draws arrows pointing in both directions. The up arrow is denoted “supports [allows and physically embodies the expression of]” and the down arrow is denoted “enarches [exhibits the structures and behaviours that make sense in their own terms and are possible within the framework of].”

Weinberg's article is worth reading in full. It has many insights about science and physics worth considering, including the relationship between emergence and reductionism.

Aside: It is also reproduced in his book of essays, Facing Up: Science and Its Cultural Adversaries, published in 2001.

Effective quantum field theories and hierarchial reality

 Over the last hundred years, there has been a fruitful cross-fertilisation of concepts and techniques between the theory of condensed matter and the quantum theory of elementary particles and fields. Examples include spontaneous symmetry breaking, renormalisation, and BCS theory. Sometimes, these efforts have occurred in parallel and only later did people realise that two different communities were doing essentially the same thing but using different language. Other times, one community adopted ideas or techniques from the other.

Central to condensed matter theory are ideas of emergence, a hierarchy of scales, and effective theories that are valid at a particular scale. Elementary particle theorists such as Steven Weinberg often distinguish themselves as reductionists with different goals and approaches. I only recently became aware that effective field theories have become a big thing in the elementary particle community, and Weinberg has been one of the leaders of this!

There is a helpful article in the CERN Courier, published just a year ago.

A theory of theories

Michèle Levi takes a tour through the past, present and future of Effective Field Theory, with applications ranging from LHC physics to cosmology.

The figure below, taken from the article, shows a hierarchy of energy scales and the corresponding effective field theories (EFTs).

n.b. Energy increases from bottom to top. [This may be confusing for condensed matter physicists, as we tend to put the high-energy theories at the bottom].

SM is the standard model

HQET is heavy quark effective theory in which the heavy quark degrees of freedom are integrated out.

EW breaking is Electro-Weak symmetry breaking which occurs on the scale of the Higgs boson.

The smallest energy scale in the figure is Lamda_QCD which is of the scale of the mass of the proton.

The standard model is now considered an effective field theory.

For the associated history and philosophy, I found this article helpful. Effective Field Theories, Reductionism and Scientific Explanation, by Stephan Hartmann

The decoupling theorem, proved by Appelquist and Carazzone in 1975, [cited 2,500 times] is central to EFTs and a hierarchy of scales. 

In its simplest case, this theorem demonstrates that for two coupled systems with different energy scales m1 and m2 (with m2 > m1) and described by a renormalisable theory, there is always a renormalisation condition according to which the effects of the physics at scale m2 can be effectively included in the theory with the smaller scale m1 by changing the parameters of the corresponding theory. The decoupling theorem implies the existence of an EFT at scale m1 which will, however, cease to be applicable once the energy gets close to m2.

There are two distinct approaches to finding effective theories at a particular scale, referred to as bottom-up and top-down approaches. 

Top-down requires one to have a theory at a higher energy scale and then integrate out the high energy degrees of freedom (fields and particles) to find the effective theory for the lower energy scale. This is what Wilson did in his RG approach to critical phenomena. Another example is how string theorists try to derive GR and the Standard Model starting with strings.

Bottom-up can always be done because one does not need to know the higher energy theory. One can often write down the Lagrangian for the EFT based on symmetry considerations and phenomenology. An example is Fermi's theory of beta decay and the weak interactions.

In a previous post, I considered Bei Lok Hu's discussion of these two different routes to developing a quantum theory of gravity.

A major outstanding challenge in the theory of elementary particles and fields is the hierarchy problem: the measured values of some masses and coupling constants are many orders of magnitude different from the "bare" values used in the Lagrangian.

The articles I have read about the role of effective field theories make no mention of the corresponding issues in condensed matter or how emergence is involved. Emergence occurs in systems where there are many interacting components. Here those components are the quantum fields and their components with different momenta/energy. Hence, I would say that emergence is at the heart of big questions in the theory of elementary particles and fields.

What is really fundamental in science?

What do we mean when we say something in science is fundamental? When is an entity or a theory more fundamental or less fundamental than something else? For example, are quarks and leptons more fundamental than atoms? Is statistical mechanics more fundamental than thermodynamics? Is physics more fundamental than chemistry or biology? In a fractional quantum Hall state, are electrons or the fractionally charged quasiparticles more fundamental?

Answers depend on who you ask. Physicists such as Phil Anderson, Steven Weinberg, Bob Laughlin, Richard Feynman, Frank Wilczek, and Albert Einstein have different views.

In 2017-8, the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi) held an essay contest to address the question, “What is Fundamental?” Of the 200 entries, 15 prize-winning essays have been published in a single volume. The editors give a nice overview in the Introduction.

This post is mostly about the essay, Fundamental? of the first prize winner, Emily Adlam, a philosopher of physics. She contrasts two provocative statements.

Fundamental means we have won. The job is done and we can all go home.

Fundamental means we have lost. Fundamental is an admission of defeat.

This raises the question of whether being fundamental is objective or subjective.

Examples are given from scientific history to argue that what is considered to be fundamental has changed with time. The reductionism has led to the drive to explain everything in terms of smaller and smaller entities, that are deemed 'more fundamental". But we find that smaller does not always mean simpler.

Perhaps we should ask what needs explaining and what constitutes a scientific explanation. For example, Adlam asks whether explaining the fact that the initial state of the universe had a low entropy [the "past hypothesis"] is really possible or should be an important goal.

She draws on the issue of the distinction between objective and subjective probabilities. Probabilities in statistical mechanics are subjective: they are a statement about our own ignorance about the details of the motion of individual atoms and not any underlying randomness in nature. In contrast, probabilities in quantum theory reflect objective chance.

as realists about science we must surely maintain that there is a need for science to explain the existence of the sorts of regularities that allow us to make reliable predictions... but there is no similarly pressing need to explain why these regularities take some particular form rather than another. Yet our paradigmatic mechanical explanations do not seem to be capable of explaining the regularity without also explaining the form, and so increasingly in modern physics we find ourselves unable to explain either. 

It is in this context that we naturally turn to objective chance. The claim that quantum particles just have some sort of fundamental inbuilt tendency to turn out to be spin up on some proportion of measurements and spin down on some proportion of measurements does indeed look like an attempt to explain a regularity (the fact that measurements on quantum particles exhibit predictable statistics) without explaining the specific form (the particular sequence of results obtained in any given set of experiments). But given the problematic status of objective chance, this sort of nonexplanation is not really much better than simply refraining from explanation at all. 

Why is it that objective chances seem to be the only thing we have in our arsenal when it comes to explaining regularities without explaining their specific form? It seems likely that part of the problem is the reductionism that still dominates the thinking of most of those who consider themselves realists about science

In summary, (according to the Editors) Adlam argues that "science should be able to explain the existence of the sorts of regularities that allow us to make reliable predictions. But this does not necessarily mean that it must also explain why these regularities take some particular form." 

we are in dire need of another paradigm shift. And this time, instead of simply changing our attitudes about what sorts of things require explanation, we may have to change our attitudes about what counts as an explanation in the first place. 

Here, she is arguing that what is fundamental is subjective, being a matter of values and taste.

In our standard scientific thinking the fundamental is elided with ultimate truth: getting to grips with the fundamental is the promised land, the endgame of science. 

She then raises questions about the vision and hopes of scientific reductionists. 

In this spirit, the original hope of the reductionists was that things would get simpler as we got further down, and eventually we would be left with an ontology so simple that it would seem reasonable to regard this ontology as truly fundamental and to demand no further explanation. 

But the reductionist vision seems increasingly to have failed. 

When we theorise beyond the standard model [BSM] we usually find it necessary to expand the ontology still more: witness the extra dimensions required to make string theory mathematically consistent.

It is not just strings. Peter Woit has emphasised how BSM theories, such as supersymmetry, introduce many more particles and parameters.

... the messiness deep down is a sign that the universe works not ‘bottom-up’ but rather ‘top-down,’ ... in many cases, things get simpler as we go further up.

Our best current theories are renormalisable, meaning that many different possible variants on the underlying microscopic physics all give rise to the same macroscopic physical theory, known as an infrared fixed point. This is usually glossed as providing an explanation of why it is that we can do sensible macroscopic physics even without having detailed knowledge of the underlying microscopic theories. 

For example, elasticity theory, thermodynamics and fluid dynamics all work without knowing anything about atoms, statistical mechanics, and quantum theory.

But one might argue that this is getting things the wrong way round: the laws of nature don’t start with little pieces and build the universe from the bottom up, rather they apply simple macroscopic constraints to the universe as a whole and work out what needs to happen on a more fine-grained level in order to satisfy these constraints.

This is rather reminiscent of Laughlin's views about what is fundamental.

Finally, I mention two other essays that I look forward to reading as I think they make particularly pertinent points.

Marc Séguin (Chap. 6) distinguishes "between epistemological fundamentality (the fundamentality of our scientific theories) and ontological fundamentality (the fundamentality of the world itself, irrespective of our description of it)."

"In Chap. 12, Gregory Derry argues that a fundamental explanatory structure should have four key attributes: irreducibility, generality, commensurability, and fertility."

[Quotes are from the Introduction by the Editors].

Some would argue that the Standard Model is fundamental, at least on some level. But it involves 19 parameters that have to be fixed from experiment. Related questions about the Fundamental Constants, have been explored in a 2007 paper by Frank Wilczek.

Again, I thank Peter Evans for bringing this volume to my attention.

Something amazing about Einsteinian gravity

When I read Fundamentals by Frank Wilczek I learnt something that I found beautiful and amazing about general relativity and quantum field theory.

Any massless spin-2 field must couple to the stress–energy tensor in the same way that gravitational interactions do. This is an alternative means to derive Einstein's equation.

Furthermore, if a massless spin-2 particle is discovered, it must be the graviton. There is a nice discussion of this on physics.forums

According to Wikipedia, "For a comparison of the geometric derivation and the (non-geometric) spin-2 field derivation of general relativity, refer to box 18.1 (and also 17.2.5) of Misner, C. W.; Thorne, K. S.; Wheeler, J. A. (1973). Gravitation." 

In the 1960s, Steven Weinberg published a series of seminal papers, summarised below by one commenter in the physics.forums discussion. The results are also derived in chapter 5 of Weinberg's Quantum Field Theory text (volume 1).

S. Weinberg, “Photons and gravitons in S-matrix theory: derivation of charge conservation and equality of gravitational and inertial mass,” Phys. Rev. 135, B1049 (1964). 

S. Weinberg, “Photons and gravitons in perturbation theory: Derivation of Maxwell’s and Einstein’s equations,” Phys. Rev. 138, B988 (1965). 

S. Weinberg, “Infrared photons and gravitons", Phys. Rev. 140, B516 (1965).

1) Maxwell’s theory is the most general Poincare’ and gauge invariant theory of massless spin-1 particle. This can be easily proved by writing down the most general Poincare invariant amplitude for emitting a single photon in the so-called soft limit. Then, by demanding gauge invariance, you get charge conservation. 

2) Einstein’s GR is the most general Poincare’ and generally covariant theory for a massless spin-2 particle. The proof is similar to photon case. You write the most general amplitude for emitting a soft graviton. Then you see what happens when you demand general covariance, i.e., demand that the amplitude is “gauge” invariant. If you do that, you find that the equivalence principle pops out. That is, all particles couple to the massless spin-2 particle with equal strength. From this, he also concluded that the coupling strength must vanish when the spin of the massless particle is greater than 2. To some extent, this explains why we don’t see this kind of particle. 

3) Yang-Mill’s theory is the most general Poincare’ and gauge invariant theory for massless, self-interacting spin-1 particles. In this case, if you do the same exercise, you find that the coupling strengths of the interaction satisfy the Lie algebra of a compact group.

It is fascinating that these papers were just a warm-up for Weinberg's 1967 electro-weak unification paper, "A model for leptons" which is the basis of his Nobel Prize, and the most cited PRL ever.

Eight amazing things physics has taught us

What are the most amazing things that we know about the physics of the universe? If you were to pick ten what would they be?

I recently read Fundamentals: Ten Keys to Reality (2021) a popular science book by Frank Wilczek. My interest in the book was piqued just to see what Wilczek's choices for his "ten" were. I got a copy from the public library and became entranced because I discovered what a gifted writer and expositor Wilczek is. I found I was learning some physics I did not know; or at least getting a deeper understanding of what I should know. I then bought my own copy so I could annotate it. I have previously enjoyed the insights in many of Wilczeks' Physics Today columns.

The book gives a popular presentation of some physics "basics" such as celestial mechanics, the Standard Model of elementary particles (which he renames the Core), and Big Bang cosmology.  I found it full of insights. I also appreciated that Wilczek does not have the hard reductionist or scientism edge found in the popular books of some distinguished theoretical physicists such as Weinberg and Hawking. However, a careful reading led me at times to be somewhat disappointed and irritated, for reasons that I discuss briefly below. In the end, this is because, not surprisingly, I have a much more emergentist perspective on reality, seeing it as stratified.

First, here are the ten things that Wilczek finds amazing, helpfully summarised in his chapter titles.

Part I. What There Is 

Chapter 1. There's Plenty of Space

Chapter 2. There's Plenty of Time

Chapter 3. There Are Very Few Ingredients

Chapter 4. There Are Very Few Laws

Chapter 5. There's Plenty of Matter and Energy

Part II. Beginnings and Ends 

Chapter 6. Cosmic History is an Open Book

Chapter 7. Complexity Emerges

Chapter 8. There's Plenty More to See

Chapter 9. Mysteries Remain

Chapter 10. Complementarity Is Mind-Expanding

Here are some of the ideas associated with each of the ten keys.

There's Plenty of Space

The scales of the universe are incredible. Beyond us, there is the vast numbers of stars and galaxies, and distances of more than ten billion light years. Within us, each of our bodies contains more atoms than there are stars in the universe. Our brains have as many neurons as there are stars in our galaxy. An atom is largely empty space.

There's Plenty of Time

Cosmic time is abundant. The quantity of time reaching back to the big bang dwarfs a human lifetime... [which] contains far more moments of consciousness than universal history contains human life spans. We are gifted with an abundance of inner time.

There Are Very Few Ingredients

Everything in the universe is made of just a few particles: leptons, quarks, and neutrinos. And forces and the associated bosons, such as photons, gravitons, and gluons. These particles have just a few properties: mass, charge, colour, and spin.

 "The most basic ingredients of physical reality are a few principles and properties. Four simple yet profound general principles govern how the world works.

1. The basic laws describe change.

2. The basic laws are universal.

3. The basic laws are local.

4. The basic laws are precise.

Newton realised locality was a problem. Fields rather than particles are the fundamenta building blocks of matter.

Quasiparticles are discussed. In high school, Wilczek was inspired by a visit to Bell Labs where he learnt that quanta of lattice vibrations are phonons. He describes how he introduced anyons in the early 1980s and how they were then identified with quasiparticles in fractional quantum Hall states.

There Are Very Few Laws

From forces we are led to fields, and from (quantum) fields, we are led to particles.

From particles we are led to (quantum) fields, and from fields, we are led to forces.

Thus, we come to understand that substance and force are two aspects of a common underlying reality.

The four fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear) are described by just a few simple mathematical equations.

The art and science of spectroscopy is described as "Atoms sing songs that bare their souls, in light."

Wilczek's Ph.D. work on quark confinement and asymptotic freedom in Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) was the beginning of QCD being accepted and used.

Newton's gravity theory presented the puzzle of the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. Einstein's gravity solved the puzzle and "fulfills Newton's aspiration for a theory of gravity based n local action". 

    "we can portray the majestic logic of general relativity in ten broad             strokes... "

    "John Wheeler, the poet of relativity, summed it up this way: "Space-time     tells matter how to move; matter tells space-time how to bend."

Wilczek makes the debatable and misleading claim that "The equations of QED, QCD, general relativity, and the weak force, ... have powered many advances, including lasers, transistors, nuclear reactors, MRIs, and GPS."

There's Plenty of Matter and Energy

The fact that the amount of solar energy falling on the surface of the earth is vastly greater than current human energy consumption.

The concept of "dynamical complexity" is introduced but not defined. "Music and ritual are purified expressions of dynamical complexity."

"The principle that the essence of human purposes is experienced through flows of information in dynamic complexity, rather than through details of chemistry and physiology, is both mind-expanding and liberating. It challenges us to imagine how minds could emerge elsewhere in the universe, and it prepares us to embrace those minds within our circle of empathy."

To me, this is "mumbo jumbo" and reflects the muddled thinking that occurs when Wilczek wildly extrapolates from "fundamental" physics to broader and deeper questions about humanity. The last chapter has similar weaknesses.

Cosmic History is an Open Book

A lucid short summary is presented of big bang cosmology. What we know and why we know it. The chapter ends with a brief reference to Augustine's prescient insights about time. It is what clocks measure and so time did not exist before the beginning of the universe.

Complexity Emerges

How did the featureless simple "soup" that existed a million years after the big bang develop into the complex universe seen today with structures such as stars, galaxies, planets, and biological life? This short chapter (only eight pages) mostly talks about the role of gravity. The chapter could have been much richer by discussing the emergence of complexity in biology, psychology, and sociology. Again, simple laws can produce complex properties.

There's Plenty More to See

The discovery of the Higgs particle and gravitational wave astronomy are both described. Some speculations are made to connect "Quantum Perception and Self-Perception."

Mysteries Remain

What triggered the big bang? Could it hapen again?

Are there meaningful patterns hidden in the apparent sprawl of fundamental particles and forces?

How, concretely, does min emerge from matter? (Or does it?)

Wilczek describes violation of time reversal invariance (T) in elementary particle physics and the Peccei-Quinn proposal for a new field to explain this. The corresponding particle was dubbed the axion by Wilczek, which fulfilled his high school dream to give a particle that name when he encountered a laundry detergent with that name. The axion "cleans up a problem" in elementary particle physics.

Axions are candidates for dark matter.

Complementarity Is Mind-Expanding

Bohr's concept of complementarity (embodied in wave-particle duality in quantum theory) is embraced. 

Complementarity is the concept that one single thing, when considered from different perspectives, can seem to have very different or even contradictory properties. Complementarity is an attitude toward experiences and problems that Ive found eye-opening an extremely helpful. It has literally changed my mind. Through it, I've become larger: more open to imagination, and more tolerant.

I am no fan of this perspective. I am all for having an open mind, considering a range of perspectives, and living with dialectic (intellectual tensions). However, I do not use quantum theory to justify that. There is a multitude of moral, philosophical, social, and political reasons that provide much more compelling justifications for humility. Bohr's perspective and extrapolations from the atomic world to politics has a long and dubious history that has systematically been debunked by Mara Beller, including in Physics Today.  Nevertheless, these ideas just won't go away, as seen why a recent volume of papers on Quantizing International Relations.

In summary, I love Wilczek's discussions of physics, and I think eight of the ten chapters describe amazing things about the physical world that we have learnt and should contemplate with awe and wonder.  But, two of the chapters make speculations about how the type of theoretical physics that Wilczek has made seminal contributions to is profoundly relevant to technological, social, economic, and political reality. I would much rather draw on the insights and debates from the humanities and social sciences to understand those realities and our place in them.

Famous last words

If you ever write a popular book about science I suggest you spend a lot of time honing your very last paragraph. If it is eloquent, grand, and hyperbolic it may be so widely quoted that many people will think that this is actually what the book is about or has proven. Here are a few examples that I often see.

Where then shall we find the source of truth and the moral inspiration for a really scientific socialist humanism? Only, we suggest, in the sources of science itself,..... it is the conclusion to which the search for authenticity necessarily leads. The ancient covenant is in pieces; man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immmensity of the universe, out of which he emerged only by chance. Neither his destiny nor his duty have been written down. The kingdom above or the darkness below: it is for him to choose.''

Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modem Biology, trans. Austryn Wainhouse (New York: Knopf, 1971), p. 167

But if there is no solace in the fruits of our research, there is at least some consolation in the research itself. Men and women are not content to comfort themselves with tales of gods and giants, or to confine their thoughts to the daily affairs of life; they also build telescopes and satellites and accelerators, and sit at their desks for endless hours working out the meaning of the data they gather. The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things which lifts human life a little above the level of farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.

Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes (Basic Books, 1977), pages 154-155.

If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, .... Then we shall all ...[discuss] why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would truly know the mind of God.  

Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

Can you think of any other examples of famous last paragraphs?

Public perceptions of condensed matter physics

Why are string theorists celebrities who write best-selling books and popular documentaries?
Why are cosmology and particle physics seen as "fundamental" and answering profound questions about "why we are here?" as they push back the frontiers of knowledge with their great intellects and imagination. In contrast, condensed matter physics gets little public attention and is not seen as exciting, "fundamental", or intellectually challenging.

There is a helpful and stimulating paper
Prestige Asymmetry in American Physics: Aspirations, Applications, and the Purloined Letter Effect
Joseph D. Martin

Why do similar scientific enterprises garner unequal public approbation? High energy physics attracted considerable attention in the late-twentieth-century United States, whereas condensed matter physics – which occupied the greater proportion of US physicists – remained little known to the public, despite its relevance to ubiquitous consumer technologies.... popular emphasis on the mundane technological offshoots of condensed matter physics and its focus on human-scale phenomena have rendered it more recondite than its better-known sibling field. News reports about high energy physics emphasize intellectual achievement; reporting on condensed matter physics focuses on technology. And whereas frontier-oriented rhetoric of high energy physics communicates ideals of human potential, discoveries that smack of the mundane highlight human limitations and fail to resonate with the widespread aspirational vision of science – a consequence I call “the purloined letter effect.”

What is this "purloined letter"??

Understanding prestige asymmetry requires discerning how the values communicated in the discourse of scientific discovery relate to the values and expectations of the surrounding society. Many in the United States see science as a source of faith in both individual potential and collective possibility, and look to it as a way to overcome human limitations. John H. Evans has documented “faith in science producing meaning” .... Science functions for many as “a source of societal hope – a way to save our society from its troubles, in the same way that societies have looked to other saviors, like religion”... Some rhetoric of scientific discovery, however, undercuts the narrative of science as a testament to human potential. When discoveries are presented as evidence that we have missed something obvious, it highlights our failings and limitations alongside our accomplishments. We can only recognize such achievements by also acknowledging our collective failure to discover earlier what was in front of our eyes all along. In these instances, scientific discoveries fail to promote the values that evidence suggests best resonate with consumers of scientific media. I call this the purloined letter effect, after Edgar Allan Poe’s 1844 short story in which a stolen letter hidden in plain sight is uncovered in a way that exposes the police, who had failed to find it, as mulish and unimaginative.

This narrative of "science as salvation", particularly in popular books, has also been discussed by Mary Midgley and by Gregory Schrempp. More recently Ian Hesketh has argued that Big History is in this genre.

Martin illustrates his argument by considering press reports about different Nobel Prizes.

Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow, and Abdus Salam’s prize for electroweak unification .... Both the LA Times and the Tribune ... gave prominent billing to Weinberg’s and Glashow’s statements about the fundamental importance of their work for understanding the way the universe works – and its manifest absence of practical applications. The .. [New York Times] toasted “a theory so profound as to affect man’s perception of existence” . 

The 1970s condensed matter prizes all recognized fundamental contributions, in particular theoretical developments in magnetism and work on the quantum properties of solids. US papers nevertheless routinely described these contributions as undergirding technological developments, with efforts to explain the content of the research either perfunctory or absent. 

The 1977 prize recognized theorists Philip Anderson, John Van Vleck, and Nevill Mott. The Nobel committee cited them “for their fundamental theoretical investigations of the electronic structure of magnetic and disordered systems.” The NY Times reported that the winners “were cited for work underlying the development of computer memories, office copying machines and many other devices of modern electronics,” and made little effort to clarify the theoretical work behind the prize. The AP report pointed to lasers, better glass, and copper IUDs ... Reuters tied the laureates’ “‘solid state’ physics theories” to “computer memories, pocket calculators, modern radios, office copiers, and solar energy converters” The emphasis was not only squarely on technology, but disproportionately on the work-a-day technologies that were becoming part of the furniture of Cold War America. High energy physics changed our perceptions of our very existence; condensed matter was the physics of photocopiers.

I thank Andrew Zangwill for bringing the paper to my attention.

I think that condensed matter physics is intellectually challenging and exciting. Furthermore, as it is all about emergence and complexity it addresses fundamental questions and produces concepts and methodologies that are not just relevant to making widgets but addressing important issues in a wide range of intellectual endeavors from biology to sociology.