The World Is Not Made of Objects | Newsletter #1

In the latest episode of Why This Universe, our guest, physicist and film-producer David Kaplan, joked that despite working in the field of “particle physics”, he doesn’t actually believe that particles exist. His view is not exceptional. Our best theory of fundamental particles, the Standard Model, describes particles not as solid objects but rather as the vibrations of underlying fields; these fields being the true fundamental stuff of the universe. Particles are just illusions: In the moment of an interaction or measurement, these field vibrations—or waves—are squeezed into a smaller and smaller space so as to appear particle-like. And yet, physicists who use the theory are still called particle physicists. It’s the label written on their professional websites, and on the field’s (possibly dwindling) job postings.

On Monday, Natalie Wolchover, Quanta Magazine’s longtime physics editor turned columnist, published a column with the raunchy title, “Is Particle Physics Dead, Dying, or Just Hard?” Natalie has been reporting on particle physics since its (final, in her view) true heyday; since 2012, when the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) announced its discovery of the Higgs boson. The Higgs was the final piece of the Standard Model puzzle, and its discovery was the last time particle physics made mainstream news headlines. She’s sensed the field’s downward slope since then. (I was in high school when the Higgs was discovered, and then worked on particle physics research in graduate school, so if she’s right you could say I missed the boat.)

But is she right? I recently wrote an article for Quanta about a few particle physicists who’ve started treating the LHC as a giant quantum computer, borrowing concepts from quantum information theory and using them as a fresh way to interpret collider data. No new physics is discovered in the process, just reframed—from particles and fields to qubits and information. Natalie edited the piece, and early on she asked me to press the scientists I interviewed on whether this research digression is a sign that they’re running out of ideas for the LHC. This poking of the bear brought up some defensive responses in interviews; many started advocating for particle physics, urging that there are still many cracks in the Standard Model left to fill in, many jobs the collider can still do.

Defensiveness can be its own sign, sure. But the fact is that the LHC will run for at least another decade, and is currently undergoing a major upgrade to be completed by 2029. Other particle physics experiments targeting neutrinos—ghost-like particles from space—or searching for dark matter are also on the come up. What’s really changed since the LHC first turned on is that physicists have failed at answering the big questions with the easy answers. The open questions are still there, which means the field is certainly not dead, but serious progress has gotten a lot harder. That alone may be enough to affect job prospects and funding—the timeline to the next groundbreaking discovery is completely unknown, and those investing with their time, money, and careers are looking for returns in their lifetime. (But isn’t that always true of the Einstein-esque breakthroughs—that you can’t see them coming?)

If the would-be particle physicists of decades prior are simply moving into more off-beat experiments, or into the murkier mathematical landscapes of string theory, that to me is a fine sign of an organic course correction on a ship that ultimately won’t stop sailing. But with a potential “brain drain” from shrinking funding, and with governments scared to invest huge sums into experiments with no sure outcomes, it’s possible we could be stalling progress on deep questions about our universe for a long time.

In the meantime, nature has already given us plenty to think about; who said we’re owed ceaseless progress? To David’s comment: The very fact that the field is still called particle physics may be a hint that we haven’t fully stomached what we already know.

(I highly recommend reading Natalie’s column, and I’d love to hear your thoughts!)

~

Belatedly, hello again! I’ve been struggling with what to do with this Substack and decided to stick true to form and turn in into a real newsletter. So you can expect either weekly or biweekly (tbd) unedited thoughts like this, updates about new work of mine, and, in newsletter spirit, a couple links from around the internet which I enjoyed reading/viewing/listening to/learning recently. Here are this week’s:

• I really enjoyed this story by Zach Savitsky about fundamental time research. Something cool: Researchers are taking clocks to the quantum limits, at which point the question of what a clock is and what it does becomes important to nail down precisely. According to a quote from the article, at it’s core, “a clock is something that creates an irreversible event that can be recorded in a register.”

• Scientific American published a super ambitious piece taking stock of all the theories of consciousness that have been proposed and are floating around. I imagine some of my readers would be interested in that, in case you missed it! (P.S. You can often access magazines like these from your local library if you want to read them for free or are looking for a cool way to spend an afternoon!)

• I learned about Aeolian harps, which are harps that are played by the wind. As air rushes past the strings, it resonates them with shifting harmonies, producing a sound that can be both enchanting and haunting. I’ve been listening to John Luther Adams’ Houses of the Wind (2021–22) when I’ve needed to go into deep focus lately; it’s composed from layers and transpositions of Aeolian harp recorded in the Arctic. It’s not exactly easy listening; it may be toward the haunting side of the spectrum.

This newsletter will stay free by email but I’m reopening up my paid access in case any generous readers would like to support my work and see that it keeps going! In the future I may consider exclusive paid content, so let me know if there’s something you’d like to see from me down the line—consider me open to suggestions and feedback! :-)