ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Cross-Check

Cross-Check


Critical views of science in the news
Cross-Check Home

From My Archives: Quark Inventor Murray Gell-Mann Doubts Science Will Discover “Something Else”

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



To commemorate the 50th anniversary of Murray Gell-Mann’s first paper on quarks, Gell-Mann biographer George Johnson has written several terrific posts about one of the truly great theorists—and characters—of modern physics. See here, here and here.

I had the good fortune (and Gell-Mann, perhaps, the bad) to interview Gell-Mann twice: in 1991, for a profile in Scientific American; and in 1995, when I was researching an article on “chaoplexity” (my term for complexity and its antecedent, chaos). The latter interview took place at the Santa Fe Institute, a leading center of complexity studies, which Gell-Mann helped found. To my surprise, Gell-Mann disparaged the hope that complexity research would yield profound new laws of nature, such as a force that counters the tendency of all systems to become more disordered.

In my 1996 book The End of Science, I cited Gell-Mann’s views to advance my thesis that science would not yield insights into nature comparable to natural selection, the double helix, quantum mechanics, relativity. Gell-Mann was not amused. Last summer, he suggested that I receive an Ig Nobel Award for advancing the “ridiculous theory that science is mined out.” But his main beef with me is my criticism of string theory, not of complexity.

Read George Johnson’s posts on Gell-Mann. Then, if you’d like a different perspective, take a look at what follows, an edited version of my profile of Gell-Mann in The End of Science:

Murray Gell-Mann is a master reductionist. He won a Nobel Prize in 1969 for finding a unifying order beneath the alarmingly diverse particles streaming from accelerators in the 1950s. He called his particle-classification system the Eight-fold way, after the Buddhist road to wisdom. (The name was meant to be a joke, he emphasized; he is not one of these flakey New Age types who thinks physics and Eastern mysticism have something in common.)

He showed the same flair for discerning unity in complexity–and for coining terms–when he proposed that neutrons, protons and a host of other shorter-lived particles consist of triplets of more fundamental entities, which he dubbed “quarks.” Gell-Mann’s quark theory has been amply demonstrated in accelerators, and it remains a cornerstone of the standard model of particle physics.

Gell-Mann is fond of recalling how he stumbled on the neologism quark while perusing James Joyce’s gobbledygookian masterpiece Finnegans Wake. (The passage reads, “Three quarks for Muster Mark!”) This anecdote serves notice that Gell-Mann’s intellect is far too powerful and restless to be satisfied by particle physics alone.

According to a “personal statement” that he distributes to reporters, his interests include not only physics and modernist literature but also nuclear arm-control, natural history, human history, population growth, sustainable human development, archaeology and linguistics. Gell-Mann has at least some familiarity with all the world’s major languages, and he enjoys telling people about the etymology and correct native pronunciation of their names.

Gell-Mann is unquestionably one of this century’s most brilliant scientists. (His literary agent, John Brockman, once said that Gell-Mann “has five brains, and every one is smarter than yours.”) He is also one of the most annoying, because of his fondness for dwelling on his own talents and belittling those of others.

Gell-Mann displayed this trait almost immediately after we met in 1991, when I interviewed him in a New York City restaurant. I had barely sat down when Gell-Mann began to tell me—as I set out my tape recorder and yellow pad—that science writers are “ignoramuses” and a “terrible breed,” who invariably get things wrong; only scientists are qualified to present their work to the masses.

As time went on, I felt less offended, since Gell-Mann obviously held many of his scientific peers in contempt as well. After a series of demeaning comments about other physicists, Gell-Mann said, “I don’t want to be quoted insulting people. It’s not nice. Some of these people are my friends.”  [*See the end of this post for a story about how our meeting ended.]

I interviewed Gell-Mann again in 1995 at the Santa Fe Institute, a small but influential research center dedicated to the study of complex systems. Gell-Mann was one of the first major scientists to climb aboard the complexity bandwagon. He helped found the Santa Fe Institute and became its first full-time professor in 1993, after decades of teaching at Caltech.

For a putative leader of chaoplexity, Gell-Mann espoused a worldview remarkably similar to that of the arch-reductionist Steven Weinberg–although Gell-Mann did not see the convergence. “I have no idea what Weinberg said in his book,” Gell-Mann replied when I asked if he agreed with Weinberg’s comments on reductionism in his 1992 book Dreams of a Final Theory. “But if you read mine you saw what I said about it.”

Gell-Mann then reiterated themes of his 1994 book The Quark and the Jaguar. (See George Johnson‘s discussion of the book’s tortuous genesis.) Gell-Mann (like Weinberg) views science as a hierarchy. At the top are theories that apply everywhere in the known universe, such as the second law of thermodynamics and his own quark theory. Other theories, such as those related to genetic transmission, apply only here on earth, and the phenomena they describe entail a great deal of randomness and historical circumstance.

“With biological evolution we see a gigantic amount of history enters,” he said, “huge numbers of accidents that could have gone different ways and produced different life forms than we have on the earth, constrained of course by selection pressures. Then we get to human beings, and the characteristics of human beings are determined by huge amounts of history. But still, there’s clear determination from the fundamental laws and from history, or fundamental laws and specific circumstances.”

Gell-Mann’s reductionist predilections can be seen in his attempts to substitute his own neologism, plectics, for complexity. Plectics “is based on the Indo-European word plec, which is the basis of both simplicity and complexity. So in plectics we try to understand the relation between the simple and the complex, and in particular how we get from the simple fundamental laws that govern the behavior of all matter to the complex fabric that we see around us,” he said. (Unlike quark, plectics has not caught on. I have never heard anyone besides Gell-Mann use the term—except to deride Gell-Mann’s fondness for it.)

I asked if Gell-Mann agreed with what his Santa Fe colleague and fellow Nobel laureate Phil Anderson said in his famous 1972 essay “More Is Different.” “I have no idea what he said,” Gell-Mann replied disdainfully. (Gell-Mann liked to call Anderson’s field “squalid-state physics.”) I explained Anderson’s idea that complex phenomena such as life and consciousness require their own theories; you cannot reduce them to physics.

“You can! You can!” Gell-Mann cried. “Did you read what I wrote about this? I devoted two or three chapters to this!” Biological phenomena, he acknowledged, obviously cannot be easily deduced from fundamental physical principles, but that does not mean organisms are ruled by their own laws operating independently of the laws of physics. “I founded a whole institute to try to react against excessive reductionism,” Gell-Mann said, “but reductionism in principle hasn’t been proved wrong.”

Gell-Mann rejected the possibility–raised by Stuart Kauffman and others–that there might be a still-undiscovered force of nature that organizes matter into ever-more complex forms in spite of the supposedly inexorable increase of entropy. This issue, too, is settled, Gell-Mann said. The universe began in a “wound-up” state far from thermal equilibrium. As it winds down, disorder increases, on average, throughout the system, but there can be local violations of that tendency.

“It’s a tendency, and there are lots and lot of eddies in that process,” said. “That’s very different from saying complexity increases. The envelope of complexity grows, expands. It’s obvious from these other considerations it doesn’t need another new law, however!”

The universe creates what Gell-Mann calls “frozen accidents”–stars, galaxies, planets, stones, trees, humans–complex structures that serve as a foundation for the emergence of still more complex structures.

“As a general rule, more complex life forms emerge, more complex computer programs, more complex astronomical objects emerge in the course of non-adaptive stellar and galactic evolution and so on. But! If we look very, very, very far into the future, maybe it won’t be true any more!” Eons from now the era of complexity could end, and the universe could degenerate into “photons and neutrinos and junk like that and not a lot of individuality.” Entropy will get us after all.

“What I’m trying to oppose is a certain tendency toward obscurantism and mystification,” Gell-Mann continued. He emphasized that there is still much to be understood about complex systems. “There’s a huge amount of wonderful research going on. What I say is that there is no evidence that we need some–I don’t know how else to say it–something else!”

Gell-Mann, as he said “something else,” wore a huge sardonic grin, as if he could scarcely contain his amusement at the foolishness of those who might disagree with him.

Gell-Mann noted that “the last refuge of the obscurantists and mystifiers is self-awareness, consciousness.” Humans are obviously more intelligent and self-aware than other animals, but they are not qualitatively different. “Again, it’s a phenomenon that appears at a certain level of complexity and presumably is emergent from the fundamental laws plus an awful lot of historical circumstances. Roger Penrose has written two foolish books based on the long discredited fallacy that Godel’s theorem has something to do with consciousness requiring”–pause–”something else.”

Particle physics, Gell-Mann said, still represents science’s best hope of discovering profound new principles of nature. Gell-Mann believed superstring theory would probably be confirmed as a unified theory of all fundamental forces early in the next millennium.

But would such a far-fetched theory–with its extra dimensions and infinitesimal stringy particles–ever really be accepted? After I asked this question, Gell-Mann stared at me, as if I’d just confessed to belief in angels. “You’re looking at science in this weird way, as if it were a matter of an opinion poll,” Gell-Mann said. “The world is a certain way, and opinion polls have nothing to do with it! They do exert pressures on the scientific enterprise, but the ultimate selection pressure comes from comparison with the world.” He urged me to ignore “crazy criticisms of superstring theory.”

Gell-Mann also had no problem with theories that posit the existence of other universes; in fact, he is a proponent of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. The goal of physics, he said, should be to determine whether our particular cosmos is probable or improbable. “If it turns out that we’re in a very improbable universe,” Gell-Mann admitted, “it’ll look funny.” But physicists can always fall back on the anthropic principle, he said, to explain why we happen to find ourselves in this particular universe.

Is science finite or infinite? For once, Gell-Mann did not have a pre-packaged answer. “That’s a very difficult question,” he replied soberly. “I can’t say.” His view of how complexity emerges from fundamental laws, he said, “still leaves open the question of whether the whole scientific enterprise is open-ended. After all, the scientific enterprise can also concern itself with all sorts of details.”

Details.

One reason why Gell-Mann is so insufferable is that he is almost always right. His assertion that research on complex systems will not yield something else—a profound new principle of nature—will probably prove to be correct. Gell-Mann errs—dare one say it?—only in his judgment of string theory, which will never be as empirically validated and hence accepted as, say, quark theory.

*One final story about Gell-Mann: After our meal together in New York in 1991, I hired a limousine to take us to the airport, where Gell-Mann was catching a plane. Before we parted, he fretted that he did not have enough money for a taxi after his plane landed; if I could give him $40 in cash, he’d write me a check. As Gell-Mann handed me the check, he suggested that I not cash it, since his signature would probably be quite valuable. I cashed the check but kept a photocopy.

Photo: Wikimedia Commons, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Murray_Gell-Mann_at_Lection.JPG.

 

John Horgan About the Author: Every week, hockey-playing science writer John Horgan takes a puckish, provocative look at breaking science. A teacher at Stevens Institute of Technology, Horgan is the author of four books, including The End of Science (Addison Wesley, 1996) and The End of War (McSweeney's, 2012). Follow on Twitter @Horganism.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 16 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. Uncle.Al 6:55 pm 12/17/2013

    “Murray Gell-Mann Doubts Science Will Discover ‘Something Else’” Give Murray new hope within 90 days in existing apparatus using commercial materials.

    1) Massless boson photons detect zero vacuum refraction, dispersion, dissipation, dichroism, or gyrotropy. Theory postulates this is **exactly** true for matter. Behold parity violations, chiral anomalies, symmetry breakings; Chern-Simons repair of Einstein-Hilbert action. Defective axiomatic systems cannot self-falsify (e.g., Newton is really general relativity and quantum mechanics).

    2) Opposite shoes embed within chiral vacuum (mount a left foot) with different energies. They vacuum free fall along divergent minimum action trajectories, exhibiting Equivalence Principle violation. Crystallography’s opposite shoes are visually and chemically identical, single crystal test masses in enantiomorphic space groups: P3(1)21 vs. P3(2)21 alpha-quartz or P3(1) vs. P3(2) gamma-glycine. Eötvös experiments are 5×10^(-14) difference/average sensitive.

    3) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/erotor1.jpg
    Two geometric Eötvös experiments. 0.113 nm^3 volume/alpha-quartz unit cell. 40 grams net as 8 single crystal test masses compare 6.68×10^22 pairs of opposite shoes (pairs of enantiomorphic unit cells).

    4) A net non-zero output shows spacetime is not **exactly** isotropic toward matter. Noetherian coupling of exact vacuum isotropy to angular momentum conservation leaks for matter as MoND’s 1.2×10^(-10) m/s^2 Milgrom acceleration. Dark matter curve-fits the Tully-Fisher relation. It is then empirically falsified. Pookie pookie 68.3% dark energy, 26.8% dark matter, 4.9% baryonic matter.

    Link to this
  2. 2. rloldershaw 12:09 am 12/18/2013

    Well, let’s consider the near-religious belief among physicists in unobservable hypothetical entities called “quarks”. They simply HAVE TO EXIST, right? Well, read on.

    No human in the entire history of this planet has ever observed a “quark”. The so-called evidence for “quarks” is based entirely on secondary or tertiary normal decay products and it is INFERRED that they decayed from “quarks”.

    Likewise the scattering experiments that are interpreted as scattering by unobservable “quarks” have other interpretations, but theoretical physicists desperately wanted “quarks” so they ignored other models.

    After Gellman-Mann introduced the “quark” model as a fictional accounting device for particle family numerology, physicists looked everywhere from the deep ocean, to the Moon, to outer space and everywhere in between for free “quarks” with fractional charges. They found not a single one. That was a big problem. So they INVENTED confinement, which is a completely ad hoc way of hiding the fictional “quarks” inside hadrons where we can never observe them.

    Regarding the “quark-gluon” plasma “evidence”, they predicted that it would behave like a weakly interacting gas. The RHIC observational evidence says this prediction was WRONG. The plasma, much to the surprise of theoretical physicists behaved like a strongly interacting fluid, which is much more like what Discrete Scale Relativity anticipates. Of course, given time the theoretical physicists “adjusted” their model to fit the new data, and now they see it as more confirmation of the “quark” fiction. Another epicycle in their Ptolemaic models.

    That’s particle physics for you: they do not study nature; they tell nature how it should be according to their Platonic fictions. Quarks are ad hoc, fractional charges are ad hoc, “confinement” is ad hoc and “asymptotic freedom” is ad hoc.

    Non-players in the theoretical physics game are treated like mushrooms: kept in the dark and fed bullshi*t.

    Those who object to postmodern pseudo-physics and demand a return to real testable science are contemptuously ridiculed.

    And that’s the truth, for once.

    Robert L. Oldershaw
    Discrete Scale Relativity
    http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
    Fractal Cosmology

    Link to this
  3. 3. rgcorrgk 5:15 am 12/18/2013

    Must say, “Comments” #1&2 make sense! (And, by the way, Mr. arrogant Nobel Prize may be, to a degree, a self victim of the old “halo effect”.)

    And, a word to science writer John Horgan: The fact that a person has “familiarity with all the world’s major languages”, and or knows a good many, only means a person has spent a good bit of time on the subject. True, this “language thing” is a Hollywood stereotype, used to alert the audience a given character is a genius (sort of like a white character using the “N” word alerts us that said character is pure evil, generally destined to die a painful death latter in the movie).
    The more useless information one puts in one’s head, the less brain cells one has left for serious thought. Just imagine how much more smart stuff Mr. Nobel Prize could have thought up had he not wasted so much brain on “all the world’s major languages”!
    RC

    Link to this
  4. 4. N a g n o s t i c 9:05 am 12/18/2013

    What rloldershaw said. Huzzah.

    Link to this
  5. 5. N a g n o s t i c 9:06 am 12/18/2013

    When did the words “proven” and “fewer” get retired?

    Link to this
  6. 6. rloldershaw 11:05 am 12/18/2013

    If the future of physics is left in the hands of the same old celebrity physicists who have lead us into the swamp of pseudo-science, and who never seem to question their basic assumptions, then we probably will never “discover something new”, not counting untestable mental, ahhhh, exhaust.

    Theoretical physics badly needs new young minds who are not encumbered by the prejudices of the past, who insist that theories should make empirical contact with the physical world, and who are open to new conceptual paradigms so long as they make testable predictions.

    RLO
    http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

    Link to this
  7. 7. tuned 11:54 am 12/18/2013

    ““chaoplexity” (my term for complexity and its antecedent, chaos)”.
    I’ve seen some pretty complicated chaos. It just seems to require more ingredients.

    Link to this
  8. 8. tuned 11:57 am 12/18/2013

    “Frankly Watson, it doesn’t change my day”.

    Link to this
  9. 9. tuned 12:01 pm 12/18/2013

    “Strings” are to them as “God” is to religion.
    The honest ones admit they can never be observed or proven.
    Doesn’t prove it’s wrong or right.
    I think both have about the same chance of being.

    Link to this
  10. 10. David Cummings 12:07 pm 12/18/2013

    rloldershaw, Quarks are fictional? Is the entire Standard Model fictional, or just quarks?

    Link to this
  11. 11. Carlos Solrac 2:33 pm 12/18/2013

    “Murray Gell-Mann Doubts Science Will Discover ‘Something Else’”
    Old Murray is right… the Standard Model is finished. They had been beaten that Quantum horse to death.

    Link to this
  12. 12. rloldershaw 11:04 pm 12/18/2013

    Hi David Cummings.

    I think “quarks” are fictional.

    I do not think the whole Standard Model is fictional.

    But here, once again, are some serious problems with the [sub]Standard Model.

    The Standard Model of particle physics is our best conventional model for what is going on at subatomic scales.

    However, here are a few well-known problems with the SM.

    1. The Standard Model is primarily a heuristic model with 26-30 fundamental parameters that have to be “put in by hand”.

    2. The Standard Model did not and cannot predict the masses of the fundamental particles that make up all of the luminous matter that we can observe. QCD still cannot retrodict the mass of the proton without considerable fudging, and even then it is only good to within 5%. As for retrodicting the mass of the electron, the SM cannot even make an attempt.

    3. The Standard Model did not and cannot predict the existence of the dark matter that constitutes the overwhelming majority of matter in the cosmos. The Standard Model describes heuristically the “foam on top of the ocean”.

    4. The vacuum energy density crisis clearly suggests a fundamental flaw at the very heart of particle physics. The VED crisis involves the fact that the vacuum energy densities predicted by particle physicists (microcosm) and measured by cosmologists (macrocosm) differ by up to 120 orders of magnitude (roughly 10^70 to 10^120, depending on how one ‘guess-timates’ the particle physics VED).

    5. The conventional Planck mass is highly unnatural, i.e., it bears no relation to any particle observed in nature, and calls into question the foundations of the quantum chromodynamics sector of the Standard Model.

    6. Many of the key particles of the Standard Model have never been directly observed. Rather, their existence is inferred from secondary, or more likely, tertiary decay products. Quantum chromodynamics is entirely built on inference, conjecture and speculation. It is too complex for simple definitive predictions and testing.

    7. The standard model of particle physics cannot include the most fundamental and well-tested interaction of the cosmos: gravitation, i.e., general relativity.

    Robert L. Oldershaw
    http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
    Discrete Scale Relativity/Fractal Cosmology

    Link to this
  13. 13. dadster 4:22 am 12/19/2013

    Gellman is more right than he realizes.physical material science has hit its ceiling .The “room at the bottom ” has also bottomed out. Material physical science has future through bio- sciences only through which a composite science can progress. At the bottom physicists ,to their utter surprise and credit found that the intention of the observer is as much a core component of the observation . This means that all observations are subjective and that there are really no objective observation. Taking one more step, the final step of material physics , they had no escape from teaching the most logical conclusion that the phenomena that we see is nothing but the creation of our mind only. The truth that mind and matter are complimentary to each other like two sides of a coin are to the reality of a coin. Mind and matter together creates phenomena which wasn’t there before we started seeing it. Our act of observation creates the observed ! Physics has entered into the region which physicists used to call “metaphysics ” or pure unadulterated abstract ” philosophy” which had no place in material physics in pre-quantum scenario ie, before material physics consumed up all the “room at the bottom” plenty of which was there when they had started to enter the bottom. This truth comes home to physicists more because they haven’t been able to create a single bio-object , not even a microbe from scratch out of unadulterated “inorganic substances ” (without the help of “organic substances ” ) , both of which are made up of atoms and quarks and responds to Electromagnetic
    (EM) energies which cannot be quickened to ” life ” , whereas nature produces life so prolifically .Physicists will be forced to admit it.
    Whereas EM energy is there in every material object , life- energy (LE) is there only in life forms which are infinite in number.EM energy is dissipated , LE on the other hand is an organizing , growing energy.
    EM is the flagship of physicists whereas LE is that of biosciences.. Together these exotic energies will merge and become holistic . Let everyone learn from each other !

    Link to this
  14. 14. rloldershaw 11:15 am 12/19/2013

    Periodically, throughout the history of physics/astronomy it has been claimed that we were nearing a limit on future major discoveries. Sometimes the reason was that we ‘already know almost everything’ and sometimes the reason was that ‘our observational capacities have an endpoint’ (e.g., ‘atoms will never be observed’).

    The classic case of this short-sightedness was in about 1900 when various celebrity physicists of the day said ‘physics was finished except for a few details’.

    Then, in quick succession, came Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

    In the 1980s the celebrity physicists of the day (like Hawking) said ‘physicists will have to start looking for new jobs because physics is just about completed.’

    ‘Those who do not learn from history and destined to repeat their mistakes’.

    Robert L. Oldershaw
    http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

    Link to this
  15. 15. JohnDuffield 3:04 pm 12/19/2013

    I generally agree with Robert Oldershaw.

    One of the issues in contemporary physics is that bona-fide competitor theories are actively suffocated by those with a reputation to preserve. To give you a hint of this, take a look at this topological quantum field theory web page:

    http://www.math.ist.utl.pt/~rpicken/tqft/

    See the blue trefoils at the top? Trace round one anticlockwise calling out the crossing-over directions: up down up. Ring any bells? You won’t be hearing about this from Murray Gell-Mann any time soon.

    Link to this
  16. 16. Wayne Williamson 2:01 pm 12/24/2013

    I for one, very much enjoyed the article…Thanks!

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Back To School

Back to School Sale!

12 Digital Issues + 4 Years of Archive Access just $19.99

Order Now >

X

Email this Article

X