de Gennes enthuses about Chemistry and skewers Comte

Pierre-Gilles de Gennes (1932-2007) was arguably the founder of soft matter as a research field, as recognized by the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1991. After this de Gennes gave many lectures in French high schools, which were then published as a book, Fragile Objects: Soft Matter, Hard Science, and the Thrill of Discovery. Previously, I mentioned the book with regard to whether condensed matter physics is too abstract.

 One of many fascinating sections of the book is a chapter entitled, The Imperialism of Mathematics. de Gennes sings the praises of chemistry, and rants about the weaknesses of the French system, laying the blame at the feet of his compatriot Auguste Comte (1798-1857). Comte was one of the first philosophers of modern science and a founder of sociology and of positivism.

Below I reproduce some of the relevant text. When reading it bear in mind that de Gennes was a theoretical physicist and did work that often involved quite abstract mathematics and concepts.

        THE "AUGUSTE COMTE" PREJUDICE

I now come to a prejudice typical of French culture, inherited from the positivism of Auguste Comte. This nineteenth-century philosopher achieved some degree of fame by inventing a classification system of the sciences. 

At the top of his hierarchy was mathematics; at the bottom was chemistry, which according to him "barely deserved the name of science"; in the middle were astronomy and physics. This classification dismissed out of hand geography and mineralogy, sciences which were declared concrete and descriptive, retaining only those that were theoretical, abstract, and general. The tone was set! It is ironic that this philosophical concept came from an individual who had once written in a letter "The only absolute truth is that everything is relative," and who claimed to be steeped quasi-religiously in factually observable laws, in other words, laws verifiable by experiments. 

The "Auguste Comte" prejudice corrupts to this day the teaching of the sciences, the scientific disciplines, and even the scientists themselves. It also contains the seed of contempt for manual labor, which has interfered for years by curbing every attempt at reform to revalue the manual trades and their apprenticeship... 

An example comes to mind, of some graduates of the Polytechnic School of Paris attending an advanced program at Orsay to learn solid-state physics. They would often show up convinced that they knew everything on the basis of calculations. 

... But the typical Polytechnic graduate I inherited at the time would remain stumped in front of his bare blackboard. One of them finally blurted out (I will never forget his comment): "But, sir, what Hamiltonian should I diagonalize?" He was trying to hang on to theoretical ideas which had no connection whatsoever with this practical problem. This kind of answer explains, in large part, the weakness of French industrial research.

Among all the catastrophes brought about by the positivist prejudice, none is worse than the widespread contempt for chemistry. I have already pointed out the importance of this discipline for our industrial future, the importance of chemists, these marvelously inventive sculptors of molecules, to whom the French teaching establishment does not do nearly enough justice. An undergraduate math major once told me about a teacher who, on opening day, announced: "I personally dislike chemistry, but I have to talk about it. So, I will start by giving you two hours of chemical nomenclature: what the name of an obscure and com- plex molecule is, and the like." At the conclusion of the two hours, the entire class was turned off chemistry for life!

When Lucien Monnerie, the director of studies, and I took over re- sponsibility for courses at the Institute of Physics and Chemistry, we had to wage a determined battle to overcome the antichemistry prejudice. Just before our arrival, the students had organized a strike: they all wanted to become physicists. Slowly, we climbed back up the slope with a series of measures: changing labels, opening up several new channels, turning the entire curriculum upside down, and launching a verbal propaganda campaign. It was rather easy for me to sound persuasive; being a theoretical physicist, nobody could accuse me of protecting my own turf. But it took us 10 years to restore the proper balance. 

To anyone who wants to form a more precise idea of chemistry, of the life of a typical chemical engineer, I would advise reading the magnificent collection of essays by Primo Levi, The Periodic Table. They recount real-life stories. They possess an authenticity and a vitality which give a universal impact to the account of an ordinary fact, the description of minute events. It is an excellent antidote to the poison spread by Auguste Comte's classification scheme.

Is condensed matter physics too abstract?

Condensed matter physics is about the properties of real materials. Real stuff that you can see and touch and that you can use to make very practical things like TV screens and mobile phones. Yet, I find it fascinating and somewhat ironic that in condensed matter theory very abstract ideas and mathematical techniques keep cropping up (and being extremely useful): variable spatial dimensions, imaginary frequencies, topology, Chern numbers, conformal invariance, ...

Yet, there is a danger with abstraction. Theoretical condensed matter is not pure mathematics. Perhaps, too often fancy and beautiful mathematics is prized over physical intuition and insight. Theory may take precedence over experiment. How does one find the appropriate balance?

This is part of broader issues about the role of abstraction and formality in education.

Pierre de Gennes (1932-2007) was arguably the founder of soft matter as a research field, as recognized by the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1991. He began his career working on superconductivity and went on to develop a unified framework to understand soft matter (liquid crystals, polymers, foams, colloids...), introducing ideas such as order parameters, scaling, renormalisation, and universality.

After his Nobel, de Gennes gave many lectures in French high schools, which were then published as a book, Fragile Objects: Soft Matter, Hard Science, and the Thrill of Discovery. I highly recommend it, both as a popular introduction to soft matter, but also to hear the perspective of a great scientist on education and research.

de Gennes spent almost his whole life living and working in France. In the book he rants about the French system, particularly its obsession with entrance exams, mathematics, formality, and the abstract.

“Manual skills, visual acumen, the sense of observation, an interest for the physical world which surrounds us, are all qualities that are neglected or downgraded.”

“To work in a garage seems to me the best initiation to a professional life.”

“Ignorance of the real world causes grave distortions.”

“the positivist prejudice”

I found this fascinating because one thing de Gennes is famous for is showing how some properties of a polymer can be understood by considering a theory involving a vector of dimension n, where n was a continuous variable, in the limit where n approaches zero! That is pretty abstract! But, I guess the point is that he is not against abstraction, exams, and mathematics, per se. Rather, he is against them taking on a life of their own.

de Gennes concerns are also shared by Henri Alloul (well known for beautiful NMR experiments on strongly correlated electron materials) author of Introduction to the Physics of Electrons in Solids. In the Preface, he writes, 

In many countries, teaching traditions have always given pride of place to a formal, and essentially deductive, presentation of the physics, i.e., starting from formal hypotheses and leading up to observable consequences. This deductive approach leaves a purely a posteriori verificational role to observation, and hides the thinking that has gone into building up the models in the first place. Here we shall adopt the opposite approach, which begins with the fact that in science in general, and in solid state physics in particular, the qualitative understanding of a phenomenon is an important step which precedes the formulation of any theoretical development. We thus urge the reader to carry out a careful examination of the deeper significance of experimental observations, in order to understand the need for specific models and carry out realistic approximations.

The debate about abstract mathematics is also central to contrasting views about the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton.

de Gennes's views would have also resonated with Harry Kroto who shared The Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery of buckyballs. He credited playing with Meccano as a child as very important in his scientific development.

Lineage of the Janus god metaphor in condensed matter

Five years ago, Antoine Georges and collaborators invoked the metaphor of the greek god Janus to represent the "two-faced" effects of Hund's coupling in strongly correlated metals.

I wondered where they got this idea from: was it from someones rich classical education?
In the KITP talk, I recently watched online, Antoine mentioned he got the idea from Pierre de Gennes.

In his 1991 Nobel Lecture, de Gennes said

the Janus grains, first made by C. Casagrande and M. Veyssie. The god Janus had two faces. The grains have two sides: one apolar and the other polar. Thus they have certain features in common with surfactants. But there is an interesting difference if we consider the films which they make —for instance, at a water-air interface. A dense film of a conventional surfactant is quite impermeable. On the other hand, a dense film of Janus grains always has some interstices between the grains, and allows for chemical exchange between the two sides: "the skin can breathe. " This may possibly be of some practical interest.

Here are some images of "Janus particles".