rambling thoughts on the nature of physics & chemistry

One of the prevailing challenges in modern physics is the tendency to rely on integers and basic arithmetic. This mindset, arguably, hinders our progress. Nature doesn't operate on numbers. We conceptualize in terms of particles because it aligns with our tangible experiences—apples, books, trees, and other physical objects we interact with. We've developed language based on these palpable experiences. However, when we delve into the minutiae of particles, like electrons, this lexicon falters.

I was reading and reflecting on the recent Nobel prize awards specifically in physics and chemistry. In case you missed it the Nobel Prize in Physics 2023 was bestowed upon Pierre Agostini, Ferenc Krausz, and Anne L’Huillier for their experimental techniques generating attosecond pulses of light, enabling profound studies of electron dynamics in matter, especially in atoms and molecules. The 2023 Nobel Prize in Chemistry recognized the work of Moungi G Bawendi, Louis E Brus, and Alexei I Ekimov for their discovery and synthesis of quantum dots—tiny nanoparticles whose properties depend on their size.

Let's delve into our current understanding, which I hope will elucidate the ideas I wish to present.

When an atom is energized, its electrons transition between different orbits. This excitation induces the atom to emit particles, predominantly in the form of photons. Einstein's groundbreaking discovery of this phenomenon took place in 1905. His recognition by the scientific community culminated in him being awarded the Nobel Prize in 1918, a commendation that came a significant 10 years after his discovery. Interestingly, while Einstein is widely celebrated for his iconic equation, E=MC^2, and his theory of relativity, he did not receive the Nobel Prize for these monumental contributions.

Einstein's contributions to science can be perceived from two distinct perspectives. Firstly, he shifted the paradigm of physics from the absolutism that had prevailed since the days of Isaac Newton. Notably, while Newton's thought process was revolutionary and relative for his era, by Einstein's time, the scientific community had adopted a more absolute approach, presuming that phenomena were fully understood without any ambiguities. This mindset, which overlooks the complexities and 'grey areas,' is not just a challenge in physics but also in engineering. Chemistry, while deeply rooted in physics, distinguishes itself by its specificity and intricate details. It leans more towards concrete explanations, rendering it somewhat less theoretical. Both engineering and medicine fundamentally rely on the principles of chemistry and physics.

Einstein, with his profound insights, recognized this. He introduced a transformative perspective on time, considering it within the context of gravity. His approach was groundbreaking because he began with an idealized concept of gravity. Traditional views saw gravity as too intricate; hence, Einstein's theory is deemed a "special case." Historically, time and space were perceived as absolutes, rooted in Euclidean geometry. This geometry, stemming from ancient Greece, relies on perfect shapes and lines. But a deeper understanding reveals more.

At the core, everything embodies waves or energy. Even when condensed to form mass, the essence remains energy. Consider the analogy of a ripple in a lake: there isn't a distinct rock causing the ripple. Instead, imagine a densified portion of the lake itself, akin to a black hole, being thrown in. The concept is rooted in relativity.

Light's movement can be likened to a slinky, as can the motion of electrons. Picture a slinky adorned with countless keychains. When an electron shifts, it traverses multiple paths simultaneously, akin to multiple rails. On average, this appears as a straight line or a curve influenced by a star's gravity. This is our current understanding. It's crucial to realize that the electron's movement isn't uniform.

When we tackle the vast realm of physics, whether on a grand scale or at microscopic levels smaller than electrons, we're essentially making approximations. This is done to translate the complexities of the universe into measurements and terms we can grasp with our language and understanding.

Consider string theory, which envisions the universe as a quilt. We exist on this constantly fluctuating quilt. The threads weaving this quilt are akin to the "strings" in string theory. Einstein's theories touched on similar conceptualizations. In 1915, he proposed a simplified analogy: when a ball is placed on a blanket, it causes a depression due to its weight. This representation offers a 2D visualization of a 4D space, and while it provides insight, it also has limitations. As we delve deeper into the actual mechanics, the model's simplicity doesn't fully capture reality. It's from such foundational models that more intricate theories, like string theory, have evolved.

The uncertainty principle, posits that one cannot simultaneously know both the exact position and momentum (or equivalently, speed) of a particle. In simpler terms, if you precisely measure one attribute, the other becomes uncertain. It's essential to note that this principle is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics. However, I really believe we need to carefully consider everything this Hiesenburg dude did…I mean he stayed with hitler…Fuck that nazi.

While I hold reservations about Heisenberg due to the fact that i just don’t trust that Nazi, there's no denying that his Uncertainty Principle touches upon a profound truth. It highlights the inherent limitations of traditional mathematics when grappling with the intricacies of the quantum realm. This is why we resort to tools like calculus, offering us a way to describe phenomena in relative terms without the crude approximations of simpler math. Yet, even with advanced mathematical frameworks, there are gaps. Concepts like imaginary numbers and irrational numbers serve as placeholders, representing aspects we don't yet fully understand. These "plugs," though seemingly abstract, have demonstrated surprising efficacy in practical applications. Even Einstein, who initially expressed disdain for imaginary numbers, eventually conceded to their utility, especially when they consistently produced accurate results, prompting their inclusion in his published works. Basically they worked so well, Einstein pulled a ‘fuck it’ and just published anyways.

Everything operates within the framework of relativity. Pure logic cannot be the sole arbitrator of all truths; there's an underlying layer that precedes it. This sentiment echoes the thoughts of Wittgenstein, who delved deep into the origins and usage of language. How do we coin terms for new concepts? Some terms, like "red" or "yellow," might seem self-evident. Yet, even with these seemingly straightforward descriptors, there's an inherent subjectivity. We might label a colour "yellow," but does everyone perceive that shade in the same way? Scientifically, we know that perceptions of colour can vary among individuals. Thus, while language provides a framework for communication, the nuances of individual experience underscore the relativity and subjectivity embedded in our understanding of the world.

Reflecting on the annals of scientific discoveries, we know they rarely emerge in isolation and are often the result of a continuum of knowledge passed through generations, even when they seem to appear suddenly. For instance, the theory of evolution wasn't solely Charles Darwin's brainchild. His grandfather, an esteemed scientist, had sown the seeds of the concept.

Picture a young Charles Darwin, in the gentle glow of a setting sun, strolling through the English countryside with his grandfather.

"Observe this stone, Charles," the elder Darwin said, lifting a mottled rock. "Guess its age?"

Charles examined it. "Several centuries?"

His grandfather smiled. "More like hundreds of millions of years. These stones are ancient witnesses, predating us and sure to outlast us."

Charles, puzzled, remarked, "Yet, the Scriptures claim the Earth is merely thousands of years old."

The elder Darwin, understanding the dilemma, responded, "Nature offers a different chronicle. The sediment layers, the embedded fossils – they chronicle ages past."

As they neared a serene lake, he added, "The lakebed rocks too, reveal Earth's layered history."

"But how do we align this with the Scriptures?" Charles inquired.

"Science and faith," the grandfather began, "are distinct perspectives. One delves into the mechanics, the other into purpose. They aren’t necessarily contradictory. It's thinkers like you who must find harmony between them."

This discourse deeply impacted Charles. Unknown to him then, these insights would underpin his future revolutionary work.

While the foundational idea of evolution was introduced by his grandfather, it was Charles who tailored it to human evolution, requiring both reinterpretation and expansion. His grandfather's teachings delved into the age of rocks, emphasizing their ancient origins that spanned hundreds of millions of years. Young Darwin was thus presented with profound questions that challenged prevailing beliefs of his time. He grappled with questions that juxtaposed contemporary beliefs with new discoveries. This intellectual backdrop shaped Darwin's pivotal years. Truly, every innovator builds upon the foundation laid by predecessors.

Darwin's genius lay not only in that he found the right lexicon to articulate the theory with precision but also expanded its horizons. His grandfather's insights provided the blueprint, allowing Darwin to elaborate and elevate.

It's both intriguing and crucial to recognize that much of our discourse, using physics as a case in point, centers around the semantics of language. Appreciating the origins of words and their inherent limitations can guard against absolutist thinking. Prominent scientists and mathematicians, despite their avowed comprehension of Einstein's theory of relativity, often grapple with this. They may succumb to the pitfalls of human-centric biases. Veer the discussion even slightly from their established framework, and inconsistencies emerge. This challenge predominantly stems from the constraints of language.

Language often uses absolutes to strengthen a point. However, the presence or absence of specific words in one's vocabulary doesn't define the broader concept they represent. For example while one might not have words tied to religious beliefs, it doesn't erase the existence or significance of religion. The universe, God, thermodynamics, and concepts like karma can be perceived as different lenses focusing on the same fundamental subject: existence and our place within it. Each term or concept, whether grounded in science or spirituality, represents humanity's diverse attempts to interpret, understand, and find meaning in the vast expanse of our reality.

The 2023 Nobel Laureates in Chemistry, Moungi G. Bawendi, Louis E. Brus, and Alexei I. Ekimov, have pioneered the development of particles so diminutive that their characteristics hinge on quantum behaviors. Termed as 'quantum dots,' these nanoparticles are spearheading revolutions in diverse sectors, marking their significance in the ever-evolving domain of nanotechnology.

Johan Åqvist, the Chair of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry, aptly encapsulates their uniqueness, noting that quantum dots exhibit a colour spectrum influenced by their size. A notion that might sound abstract today, but was even more so in the past. Historically, while physicists were theoretically aware of the potential size-dependent quantum effects within nanoparticles, the tangible realization of such phenomena was a distant dream, given the challenges of manipulating matter at such minuscule scales.

However, the 1980s heralded a shift. Alexei Ekimov achieved a breakthrough, harnessing size-dependent quantum effects within coloured glass, a feat made possible by nanoparticles of copper chloride. This pioneering work showcased that it was the quantum effects, influenced by particle size, that determined the glass's hue.

Not long after, Louis Brus furthered this exploration, becoming the first to evidence size-dependent quantum effects within particles suspended in a liquid medium. The trajectory of quantum dots took another significant leap in 1993 when Moungi Bawendi refined their chemical production, yielding near-perfect particles—a prerequisite for their practical applications.

Venturing into the domain of quantum mechanics, we encounter concepts that, while profound, can often feel removed from intuitive understanding, largely due to the language used. A prime example is the term "quantum dot." At its core, a quantum dot is a nanoscale crystal, its electronic properties intricately tied to its size. Yet, the term, while scientifically apt, might not immediately evoke its true essence to a layperson.

Reflecting on the terminology, one could argue that a different name might have offered more immediate clarity. But as history shows, once certain terminologies gain momentum in the scientific community, they embed themselves in our lexicon, shaping collective understanding. Terms like "black hole" or "string theory," while now familiar, also initially presented challenges in immediate comprehension.

The beauty of quantum dots lies in their conceptual simplicity. They are minuscule crystals that alter their color emissions based on size, a phenomenon governed by quantum mechanics. But to truly grasp their nature, one might consider the principles of thermodynamics and entropy. Think of light as energy. When confined in a smaller space, like a minuscule quantum dot, the energy appears more dense, leading to higher energy emissions, akin to bluer light. In contrast, in a larger space, energy disperses more, reflecting the principles of entropy, resulting in lower energy emissions or redder light.

Language, undoubtedly, plays a pivotal role in how we convey and comprehend complex scientific concepts. The nomenclature chosen by scientists and researchers, while aiming for precision, can sometimes inadvertently create barriers to understanding, especially for those not entrenched in the field.

Take the term "quantum dots" for example. At its core, the concept is relatively straightforward: they are tiny crystals whose unique properties change based on their size. Yet, the word "quantum", laden with connotations of advanced physics and complex mathematics, can be intimidating for many. This inadvertently erects a barrier, making the concept seem more esoteric than it truly is.

Quantum mechanics and thermodynamics, though foundational to physics, are often perceived as daunting due to the intricate language and mathematical frameworks (often stuffed with made-up constructs to ensure coherence). However, when these subjects are distilled to their essence, they revolve around fundamental truths about the universe that can be grasped intuitively. The challenge lies in navigating the intricate terminologies and abstract constructs to access the core ideas, and in doing so, it's imperative to recognize where our models might be asking for a shift in perspective.

It's crucial for the scientific community to recognize the power and influence of language. While precision is paramount, accessibility should not be sacrificed. Concepts like quantum dots could serve as gateways, demystifying the realms of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics for the broader public. But for that to happen, the language used needs to invite curiosity rather than deter it. Simplifying terminologies and explanations doesn't dilute the science; instead, it broadens its reach and fosters a deeper appreciation and understanding among a wider audience.

At the heart of many scientific pursuits lies a subtle yet profound trap: absolutism. The attosecond light pulses— providing unprecedented insights into the ultrafast dance of electrons—serves as both a testament to human ingenuity and a reflection of our propensity to seek definitive answers. While this discovery is nothing short of awe-inspiring, it also brings to the fore the dangers of viewing the universe through an absolutist lens.

Being precise allows us to convey ideas clearly and specifically, but it's vital that we remain open to the fluidity of understanding, the possibility of change, and the vastness of what we don't yet know. Absolutist language, with its rigid definitions and unwavering certainties, can stymie progress, limiting our capacity to adapt, evolve, and embrace new paradigms.

The ripples of this mindset are evident across various sectors, including renewable energy, where definitive stances can sometimes hinder innovative solutions and holistic approaches. As we stand on the cusp of new scientific frontiers, it's imperative to recognize the weight and responsibility of our words. The proper use of language can be our greatest ally, ensuring that while we pursue clarity, we also remain receptive to the boundless complexities of the universe.

Today, there's a prevailing sentiment, reminiscent of the past, where many in the scientific community believe that we can eventually discover and understand everything. This perspective, while ambitious, might inadvertently be placing constraints on our potential to truly grasp the vast enigmas of our universe. To believe we are on the cusp of understanding all is potentially to overlook the myriad mysteries that still elude us. I have thoughts on the physics and other awards, but I will stop here for now, other than to say i was very pleased with the nobel peace prize and I am hopeful Narges Mohammadi is able to accept her award in person.