Why “Many” Is Displacing “Small” as the Hottest Frontier in Physics

Why “Many” Is Displacing “Small” as the Hottest Frontier in Physics

By Charlie Wood

Each week Quanta Magazine explains one of the most important ideas driving modern research. This week, physics staff writer Charlie Wood outlines how the biggest field in physics is enjoying a golden age.


Is fundamental physics in crisis? Many physicists and journalists — myself included — worry that it is. The Nobel Prize–winning physicist Richard Feynman defined fundamental physics as “the rules of the game,” and we don’t know that much more about nature’s rules today than we did in the 1970s — despite intense efforts in particle physics and astrophysics to reveal new ones.

That plateau in progress is real, but it mainly concerns the rules of the subatomic world, the frontier of the very small. There is another frontier with an entirely different set of rules: the frontier of the very many. Birds form free-wheeling flocks. Snowflakes pile up and create an avalanche. H2O molecules can collectively become vapor, water or myriad forms of ice. When simple objects gather in large numbers, behaviors materialize that are hard, if not impossible, to anticipate.

“The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe,” wrote Philip Anderson, another Nobel laureate physicist, in his classic essay “More Is Different.” “Instead, at each level of complexity entirely new properties appear, and the understanding of the new behaviors requires research that I think is as fundamental in its nature as any other.”

Anderson was a key player in the subfield most dedicated to exploring this complexity frontier, known today as condensed matter physics. Condensed matter physicists concern themselves with the large-scale properties of matter, especially solids and liquids. Much of the focus is on figuring out how quantum particles — often electrons — behave in vast swarms.

The ability to understand, and therefore tame, electrons’ collective behaviors has had an enormous technological impact. The 1930s-era theory of what electrons are doing inside conductors, semiconductors and insulators led to the transistor and our digital age. In the 1950s, physicists determined why electrons sometimes pair up in a way that allows them to “superconduct,” flowing through a metal with zero resistance, enabling the development of the superconducting magnets in MRI machines and large particle colliders.?

That was just the beginning. Today, condensed matter represents the largest subfield of physics, accounting for at least a third and perhaps nearly half of all working physicists. Many continue to study superconductivity, while others investigate even more exotic phenomena. The discoveries have come at a rapid pace — new instances of superconductivity, exotic forms of magnetism, and situations where electrons conspire to act as if they’ve broken into parts, to name just a few. Experimentalists regularly make unexpected observations, and theorists develop useful models for explaining what’s going on. Particle physics might be stuck, but condensed matter physics is enjoying a golden age of discovery.

What’s New and Noteworthy

One of the biggest developments in condensed matter — if not all of physics — in recent decades has been the discovery of a whole new way for matter to organize itself. In school we learn about phases of matter that you can sketch on a page; a solid forms when molecules snap into a grid, for instance, or a metal becomes magnetized when its atoms all point in one direction. Now there’s topological order, which involves different patterns that can form when quantum particles in a material become entangled with each other. These patterns can lead to strange materials, such as ones that maintain superconducting boundaries and insulating interiors. In recent years, quantum computers have allowed physicists to engineer some of the simplest topological phases, though others remain entirely theoretical.

Another booming area of investigation involves a shift from studying minerals one might dig out of the ground to creating designer 2D materials with precisely tuned characteristics. The revolution began with the 2004 discovery that you could peel a flat honeycomb lattice of carbon atoms off a hunk of graphite with a piece of Scotch tape to form a 2D material dubbed graphene. Then came the blockbuster 2018 discovery that a properly assembled graphene sandwich could superconduct electricity. Now multiple labs have found superconductivity in various stacks of carbon sheets. And they’re stacking other materials to create devices with bespoke electronic properties?that produce all sorts of strange quantum states.

Condensed matter is so vast and active a field that any overview of its various fronts will be woefully incomplete. In the last year alone, physicists created phases of matter where fractional electric charges move freely without relying on powerful magnetic fields; confirmed the existence of a new kind of magnetism; heard the smooth hiss of electrons conspiring to flow in a seemingly continuous current of charge, and completed a 70-year hunt for a motionless wave of electrons known as Pines’ demon.

But even as the field racks up discoveries about collective electron behaviors, it has also experienced several recent controversies. An allegedly eternal form of quantum stability has fallen under suspicion. Splashy papers purporting to have detected an elusive particle useful for quantum computing have been retracted due to sloppy data analysis. And one high-profile claim of room-temperature superconductivity turned out to be a case of outright fraud.

Fraud aside, perhaps such missteps are hard to avoid in a fast-moving field dedicated to uncovering the unforeseeable physical phenomena that lie just over the complexity horizon. More is different, and also very hard.

Around the Web

  • The physicist Philip Anderson explains how complicated emergent systems are fundamentally different from their constituent parts in his 1972 essay, “More Is Different.”
  • The foundation of much of condensed matter is “band theory,” which explains how the flow of electrons differs in conductors, semiconductors and insulators. The YouTube channel PhysicsHigh explains the basics in this video.
  • TED-Ed presents a way to think about what makes “topological” matter topological.
  • Last year, one of the most stunning experimental claims in the history of condensed matter became one of the field’s biggest scandals, Dan Garisto wrote for Nature.



Blaine Snow

Retired Instructor of English as a Second Language

3 周

What amounts to a scalar war within science has been going on for decades between theoretical-reductionist physics and thermodynamic-complexity physics... the "small to many" shift means emergence is finally being taken seriously among math-physics folks... complexity folks have been developing emergence theory since the 1980s, largely ignored or explained away by GUT fundamentalists.

Henry DelForn

Private Investor

4 周

The question of "many" versus "small", or "scaling", depends on what's being studied and what's being asked. There's no general answer that fits all. Take for example the new HiLumi project at CERN. This project significantly increases the luminosity of the colliding beams. In other words, it increases the number of collisions. In my opinion, since what's being asked are fundamental questions about proton, scaling up is a mistake because it increases the complexity of interactions when you're asking basic questions about the proton. Instead, i would argue to go "small" and invest big on focusing the beam to a single particle, one proton-proton collision at the time but done "many" more times than before. So here is one example of reducing scale on one hand and increasing scale on the other all within the same context. So when it comes to scale, it all just depends.

Interestingly, before his 1911 survivor-guilt conversion to the continuum Minkowski maths that he initially found baffling and contrary to his instincts, Einstein fully and intransigently embraced the view that any measurement of space and time is meaningless without matter. In that same 1911 talk and paper in which he expressed his sadness over Minkowski's unexpected death by appendicitis, Einstein went to great lengths to define _experimentally measurable_ space and time (space first, then time) as possible only by spreading and synchronizing a great number of clocks over the region you wish to define as the "space" of your personal inertial frame. That Einstein Phase I approach is strikingly similar to this emerging emphasis on having many atoms work together to produce interesting and fundamental physics. His 1911 "cloud of clocks" looked much like a rarified form of condensed matter physics and not at all like the infinitely-detailed-at-no-cost, continuum-math-over-matter, post-1911, pro-Minkowski model that Einstein Phase II used after 1911. Mind you, Einstein Phase II was spectacularly successful since it led to perhaps the greatest theory of all time, General Relativity! But more subtly, it also excluded quantum.

Dimitrios S. Dendrinos, Ph.D.

Emeritus Professor, the University of Kansas; Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PA; Masters, Washington University, St. Louis, MO. Author, editor, researcher, teacher, thinker

4 周

I have argued for some time now, that a rigorous analysis of the role of "scale" is what is missing in the field of Physics, a notion equivalent in substance to those of time and space. When scale is explicitly considered in stating fundamental laws of Physics, from the behavior of matter at the microscale of an atom, to that at the cosmological scale, then properties (functions) and forms change. The "unifying" or "standard" theory loses meaning.

要查看或添加评论,请登录

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了