Q: What’s the point of purely theoretical research?

Physicist: The classic answer to this question, due (possibly) to Franklin, is “what use is a new-born baby?”.

The problem is that the best research/exploration is about looking for stuff, while not quite knowing what to expect or what to do with what you find.  Effectively everything we know about the universe today, all the simple facts and well established technologies, are (or are directly based on) something that was discovered accidentally.  It would be nice to say that science is the total sum of the knowledge devised by geniuses throughout the ages.  And while that is a big part of it, it would be somewhat more accurate to say that science is the total sum of knowledge gained through a spectacular series of surprises and mistakes, that no one could have predicted.  The universe just can’t be figured out without poking around.

You could say that theoretical research is about finding out what we don’t know that we don’t know.  It was the great philosopher Rumsfeld who may have put it best:

“Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”

-Donnie “Knuckles” Rumsfeld

Some of the more common questions we get are along the lines of “why should we explore space?” or “what’s the point of CERN?” or “what’s the point of investigating things when you have no idea what they could be used for?”.  Which is fair.  Despite the tremendous advances achieved by “aimless science”, it’s still plenty hard to justify a mission statement like “hey, we might find something cool”.

And, while addimittedly a lot of the low hanging, doesn’t-cost-billions-of-dollars-to-look-in-to fruit has been picked, you may be surprised how quickly advanced science crops up when you start looking around.

Look at a tree swaying in the breeze and you’ve got damped harmonic oscillation.  Look at water in a gutter and you’ve got shock dynamics, wave dynamics, and even super-position (of water waves).  And nobody learns Newton’s laws faster than someone standing up in a canoe for the first time.

Physics isn't a secretive science. That crap is everywhere.

Point is, going about your business, it’s easy to trip and fall onto some science.  Go about your business around some big science toys (a lab) and you might stumble into something amazing.  In fact, most of the really big game-changing discoveries were made by mistake and/or were useless for years.  For example; for centuries glass was only used in bead form, and electricity was a painful thing that fish sometimes do.

The Rutherford experiment, that first demonstrated the existence of the atomic nucleus, was trying to measure the properties of the “plum cake” nature of matter (a soup of positive charge punctuated by electrons that has no nuclei).

The Michelson-Morley experiment, that provided the first real evidence for relativity was trying to measure an imaginary “luminiferous eather”.  The results of that experiment weren’t even a possibility in anyone’s mind, and it led to Einstein’s relativity.

The photo-electric effect, that formed the basis of early quantum mechanics and set the ground work for “wave-particle-ness”, was discovered accidentally when a dude was trying to figure out the voltage needed to make an electrical arc in the air.

So, of what use is a newborn baby?  None yet.

A similar question might be “can you build a world wide civilization based (in part) on what you learn from hurting sick people by putting fish on them?”

The road from fish to power plant is long and winding.

The short answer is: yes.


Mathematician: There are approximately three things that can motivate projects in science and math. Some projects are undertaken because they seem like they might be useful, like current microchip research. Some are fueled by public fascination, such as studies conducted on the digits of pi. Still others are done mainly because they are interesting to the researchers working on the projects, and help those researchers maintain jobs. Just think of the countless papers on useless, obscure subjects that less than a hundred people in the world care about.

So some research is valuable to the world because of its usefulness, and some because it fascinates and delights us. But what about the third type that is motivated mainly by the interest of those who study it? Well, occasionally such research does turn out to be useful or fascinating. Number theory is a nice example, because its study very unexpectedly led to algorithms that are extremely useful in cryptography. What’s more, the field ended up intriguing the world with the story of Fermat’s last theorem, and its proof 358 years later.

Most of the time though, research that seems both useless and boring actually is exactly that. One can have an approximate sense of how important research could turn out to be based on how connected it is to reality, how connected it is to other, different, areas of math or science, and how much potential it has for altering our perspectives or engineering. Discovering new fundamental laws of physics generally turns out to be pretty darn useful. Discovering new laws about how rats move through mazes, generally not so much.

 

 

Posted in -- By the Mathematician, -- By the Physicist, Experiments, Philosophical, Skepticism | 4 Comments

Q: Why does lightning flash, but thunder rolls?

Physicist: The speed of light (which governs how long it takes to see lightning) is about one million times faster than the speed of sound (which governs how long it takes to hear lightning), so for the purposes of this post you can consider light to be instantaneous.

At the moment of a lightning strike the air at every point along the bolt explodes, making a sound (a loud explody sound).  But while all the sound is generated at the same moment, lightning bolts tend to be very long (generally several miles), so you don’t hear it all at once.

As time passes after the initial flash you'll hear sound from progressively more distant parts of the lightning bolt. The more lightning bolt there is at a particular distance from you, the louder it will sound at the corresponding time.

When a lot of the bolt is all about the same distance away you hear a “boom”. When only a little of the bolt is a particular distance away you hear a rumbling.  Another way of saying that is: when you hear the sound from a lightning bolt that’s pointing toward/away from you, you’ll hear a softer rumble because you’re only hearing one point of the lightning bolt (middle picture above).  When you hear the sound from a lightning bolt that’s running side-to-side in front of you, you’ll hear a “crack” or “boom” because the sound from a lot more of the bolt will reach you all at once (left and right pictures above).

So (were you so inclined),  you could actually get some idea of what a lightning bolt is shaped like, just by listening.  Since the sound depends on the side-to-side-ness vs. the toward-away-ness, and that changes with your vantage point, people in different locations will hear a different pattern of booms and rumbles from the same lightning bolt.

By the way, the “5 seconds per mile” rule for gauging distance to lightning is surprisingly solid.  It’s accurate to within about 6%, which isn’t terrible!

Posted in -- By the Physicist, Physics | 5 Comments

Q: Hyperspace, warp drives, and faster than light travel: why not?

Physicist: Firstly: no.  But, if you’re really set on it: maybe.  The essential problems are that moving faster than light (FTL) requires impossible acceleration (not difficult but impossible in a “doesn’t make sense to talk about” kind of way), and FTL violates causality in some weird ways (for example, it allows travel backward in time).

This needs a little background, so pack a lunch.

Differently moving observers see events happen in different places.  For example, if you’re in a car, everything you do seems to be happening in more or less the same place, while for someone on the side of the road all the things that you do are strung out along the car’s route.

Perspectives that are moving with respect to each other are said to be in different “frames”.  So everyone in the car are in one frame, everyone waiting at a bus stop are in another frame, and everyone in an airplane overhead are in yet another frame.  There’s nothing more to frames than that.  So, something like “move to a different frame” just means “change speed”.

Alice (red) and Bob (blue) are moving with respect to each other. For no particularly good reason Alice sets off two firecrackers (green crosses). In Alice's frame (left) the explosions happen in the same place, one after the other. In Bob's frame (right) the explosions happen in different places. In all of the diagrams in this post, time is up and space is right/left.

Galileo (the famous one) recognized that in different frames the same events happen in different places (picture above).  More than that, he realized that all of the physics that he knew of worked the same regardless of the frame (moving / not moving), and with remarkable humility he named that realization “Galilean Equivalence”.

In 1905 the ‘Stein introduced a theory about relative movement that took Galilean Equivalence (physical laws are the same in all frames) and added invariance of light speed in all frames.  This is the corner-stone of relativity, and it’s called the “Einstein Equivalence Principle”.  The first big result of the EEP, is that not only do different frames disagree on where events happen, but also when.  It’s a bit much to go into, so if you’re interested in why, there’s an “explanation” in this post.

Different frames (red and blue) disagree on, among other things, what "now" is. The time that an event occurs, and even the order of events, can be changed by moving from one frame to another. The dashed lines are a single moment in time, (which are different) from each frame's perspective.

In the world according to Galileo (pre-relativity) any event could be moved relative to any other just by moving very fast.  For example if two events happen in the same place, but one hour apart according to Alice, then Bob can make the second event happen 60 miles away from the first by moving at 60 miles per hour relative to Alice.  Sadly, questions about “who’s right?” aren’t valid.  The universe has no “preferred frame”.

In Galileo’s old-timey world view there are some restrictions to how events can be rearranged from one frame to another.  Namely, the time when an event occurs never changes, and the future is always the future, and the past is always the past.

With the advent of relativity that was no longer the case, however, new restrictions popped up.  A pair of events can be separated in three ways: timelike, lightlike, and spacelike.

For a given event (center, black) all other events fall into one of three categories: timelike, lightlike, or spacelike separated. The yellow lines represent the path that light takes through the given event. The spacelike event can move around in its area on the right (even allowing it to occur before or after the center event), and the timelike event can move around in its area on the top.

Timelike separation means that there’s some frame in which the two events happen in the same place.  That is, if you move fast enough (slower than light) you can be present at both.  Timelike separated events always happen in an order: no matter what frame you’re in, everyone will agree which event happened first and which happened second.  Every event you’ve ever personally experienced has been “timelike separated” from every other.

Lightlike separation means that to be present at both events you’d have to be traveling at light speed.

Spacelike separated means that there’s no way to be present at both events, even travelling at the speed of light.  Things that are happening in Alpha Centauri “right now” are spacelike separated from us (right now).  There is always some frame in which spacelike separated events happen at the same time, but never in the same place.  Even weirder, spacelike separated events don’t have an order.  Different frames will disagree on which happens first.

So, finally: here’s the issue.  If you accelerate like crazy, get a huge rocket or whatever, the highest speed you can get up to is almost the speed of light.  The “start” and “stop” events of your journey will always be timelike separated, regardless of how high your acceleration, or how long you accelerate for.  Traveling faster than light means that your start and stop events are spacelike separated, and there is no physically real acceleration that can get you to move like that.  Most people are willing to forgive that, and say: “Dude, wormholes and warp drives!  S’cool!”.  But those brave souls still need to contend with the second issue: causality.

A ship with some kind of FTL drive races a beam of light. Left: The ship engages the drive (green cross), simply moves faster than light for a while, then disengages the drive (red cross). Right: The exact same situation as viewed from a different frame.

Say you’ve got the Enterprise (NCC-1701) and it works just like you’d expect: it cruises around at sub-light speeds until it engages its warp drive, which allows it to move at FTL speeds.  It moves from one star system to another, then eventually disengages the drive and “drops out of warp”, no harm no foul.  However!  When viewed from a different frame, the same situation can be very strange.

The engage and disengage events are spacelike separated, so they don’t actually have an order.  From (any one of) the proper frames, the disengage event can happen first (right half of the image above).  When that’s the case you find that:

-First there’s one ship, traveling slower than light.

-Then suddenly, and without cause of any kind, two new copies of the ship appear at a place some distance away.  One is traveling faster than light, and the other is traveling slower.  This event corresponds with the drive being shut down.

-The FTL version travels backward until it contacts the original ship, at which point they both disappear at the moment that the original engages its drive.

Now, sure, ships coming into existence and popping out again may seem bad enough, but the big problem is that FTL travel opens the door to backward time travel (forward is fine: you’re doing it now).

By taking a couple spacelike paths that end earlier than they started you can zig-zag back in time and find yourself in the same place you started, but earlier than the time when you originally left (in the example on the right side of the picture above the route gets you back to before you left, but in a different location).

Time traveling zig-zag: If you can get into the past somewhere else once, then why not do it twice and get into your own past?

There are a lot of problems with time travel (see: “Time Cop” and “Back to the Future”).  But, paradoxes and amazing one-liners aside, it seems to be very impossible.  There is no indication, direct or indirect, that the future can affect the past at all (except for psychics, obviously), let alone that anything can physically move from the future to the past.  So; case closed.  As long as the future follows the past, nothing can travel faster than light.

Spacetime diagrams for some sci-fi ideas about FTL (from left to right, then top to bottom): Star Trek or Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Babylon 5, and Dr. Who. Dashed lines are connections, not traversed distance. Click to enlarge.

But wait!  Despite their romantic prospects, physicists are consummate, rarely-say-die, optimists.  In that vein they’ve come up with several scenarios that (if real) would allow for FTL travel, but circumvent the whole time-travel thing.

The quickest way is to alter one of the basic assumptions of relativity; namely that all frames are equivalent.  Just declare that FTL travel is possible, but only in one direction.  That prevents things from zig-zagging into the past, but it also makes space travel kinda boring.  Sure you can explore stuff, but you can never get home.

Alternatively, you can declare that there exists one unique frame such that no paths into the past are possible.  Although other frames still get weird effects (disappearing ships, and causeless events, and whatnot), nothing can to loop back into its own past.  I think this is the idea that most sci-fi shows and books are working with, but that’s meeting them more than half way.

Posted in -- By the Physicist, Physics, Relativity | 21 Comments

Burning Man 2011

Before it was a website, Ask A Mathematician / Ask A Physicist was two guys sitting in the desert at Burning Man, presuming to answer (almost) any question that happened to occur to whomever happened to appear at our stand.

We’ll be at burning man, and out of contact for the next week or so, so if it takes an especially long time for us to answer emails, it’s nothing personal.

There! Aug 31 and Sep 1, from 1:00pm-4:00pm.

We’ll be setting up a stand on August 31st and September 1st, from 1:00pm-4:00pm.  So, if you’re going to be around, and you’d like to meet two people who actually write an honest-to-god web blog, then stop on by.

Here is the official description from the Burning Man events guide:

“Questions about the nature of reality, pi, infinity, primes, imaginary numbers, love, quantum theory, relativity, black holes, calculus etc? Come by! AAMAAP is about having access to a couple friendly people with math and physics backgrounds to answer questions that have been bothering you, or just a chance to soak in the vibe. The universe is a weird place. But not so weird that there aren’t any good answers to things! Location: 6:00 and walk a hundred yards toward the Man.”

Posted in -- By the Mathematician, -- By the Physicist | 11 Comments

Q: If light slows down in different materials, then how can it be a universal speed?

Physicist: This bothers a lot of people.  When you’re learning physics, there are several things that you learn in the first couple years.  Among them are:

1) The speed of light is an absolute.

2) Light slows down when it passes through a medium (like water, glass, air, …).

The first statement is the backbone of all of modern physics (relativity), and the second helps explain things like diffraction and rainbows.  But clearly these statements contradict each other.

Here’s the idea: a medium, whatever it is, is made up of molecules.  When a photon (light particle) hits a molecule it is sometimes absorbed.  Its energy is turned into raised electron-energy-levels, or vibrations and flexing, or movement.  In short order (very short order) the photon is spit out of the other side, none the worse for wear.

When a photon hits a molecule it's sometimes absorbed and re-emitted. That process takes a little bit of time that we interpret as a "slowing".

In between molecules light still travels at light speed.  It’s just that, with all those molecules around, it’s always darting ahead, getting absorbed, pausing for a moment, then being re-emitted.  On the scale we’re used too, this happens so much and so fast that you don’t notice the starting-and-stopping.  Instead you notice an average slowing of the light.

That is, if light always takes about 33% longer to travel through water than air (and it does) due to absorption and re-emission, you’d say “ah, light travels slower through water!”.  The fact that that isn’t quite the case is rarely important.


Answer gravy: This isn’t part of the answer, but it’s interesting: The interaction between light and the medium it moves through is generally “clean”, in the sense that even if the light is in a complicated quantum state before entering the medium, it retains it.  As a result, light continues to point in the same direction (which is good, in terms of seeing stuff), and even keeps its polarization.

What’s really fascinating, is that even more bizarre quantum states, like those involving being spread out over a large area, are also allowed to persist.  If this were not the case it would be impossible to do the double slit experiment (which requires the photon to be in many locations) without a specially prepared vacuum chamber!

Posted in -- By the Physicist, Physics, Quantum Theory | 78 Comments

Q: What is mass?

Physicist: Short questions are real killers!

“Mass”, like practically everything in physics, is defined in terms of its properties, like:

1) Mass has inertia.

2) Mass creates gravity (energy does this too).

3) Mass travels slower than the speed of light.

Anything with these properties has mass.  But as for what mass is: no idea.

I’ve heard theories about mass being “knots” of spacetime, but the most promising theory today involves the Higgs field.  Essentially it describes “a field” that imparts the properties of mass to most types of particles (not photons, for example).

But that’s not much closer to an answer.

I suppose it’s best to say that there are a lot of things in this universe with a certain set of properties in common, and we say that those things “have mass”.

I do recognize how deeply disappointing that answer is.  I mean “mass is something with the properties of mass”?  What the hell are you supposed to do with that?

You could make the argument that it’s impossible to really understand what anything is, and that what we consider “intuitive understanding” is nothing more than a familiarity with a some set of familiar properties.  If you wanted to make that argument anyway.

Even electrons, which today we know are some kind of especially small particle thing, were named long before their size or particleness were known.  They were named for the fact that when you rub amber with fur, the amber acquires some strange properties (a negative electric charge), and the thing that causes those properties came to be known as “electron”, the Greek name for amber.

You don't have to understand exactly what something is to know it when you see it.

Point is, the name was given to a set of properties, and at the end of the day that’s probably the case for damn near every thing worth naming.

This kind of crappy answer isn’t restricted to physics, by the way.  You want to waste an evening; get a biologist or zoologist drunk and ask them, “Hey, what’s a species?”.

Posted in -- By the Physicist, Philosophical, Physics | 7 Comments