The 19th century German physicist Heinrich Hertz once described his feeling that James Clerk Maxwell’s equations, which depict the fundamentals of electricity and magnetism, “have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own, that they are wiser … even than their discoverers, that we get more out of them than was originally put into them.”
Not long after, Albert Einstein called Niels Bohr’s atomic model “the highest form of musicality in the sphere of thought.”
More recently, the late US Nobel laureate Richard Feynman, describing his discovery of new laws of physics, said: “You can recognize truth by its beauty and simplicity.”
Similar sentiments are all but universal among modern physicists.
Wishful thinking could never produce working iPhones, photographs of Pluto, or atomic bombs. Physics, as summarized in a handful of mathematically precise laws, indisputably works. Yet many things that “work” do not inspire the kind of admiration that the fundamental laws of nature do.
Their beauty is rooted, first, in the laws’ symmetry, here meaning the possibility of change without change — a precise yet almost mystical concept. Just as a circle can be rotated about its center at any angle, changing the position of each of its points without changing its form, symmetric laws apply to changed situations without changing or losing validity.
For example, special relativity asserts that the fundamental laws of physics remain the same when we view the world from a platform moving at constant velocity. Similarly, so-called time translation symmetry encodes the uniformity of physical law in time: Even as the universe ages, the laws remain the same.
The second source of beauty in the laws of physics is their productivity — what I call their exuberance. Just a handful of basic principles generates an astonishing wealth of consequences — everything in the physical world. You can write the equations of the core theories of physics — known as the standard model — quite comfortably on a T-shirt. To paraphrase Hertz, they give back far more than we put in.
It is important to say that the laws of physics need not necessarily have such marvelous properties. Consider this hypothetical situation: Developments in computer power, virtual reality and artificial intelligence enable the creation of self-aware beings whose “world” is, from our perspective, a programmed simulation. If a self-aware Super Mario began to analyze the laws of his world, he would find very little symmetry or productivity. Instead, he would find a vast collection of loosely connected, quirky rules, reflecting the whims of the programmer.
The beauty of physical law is too impressive to be accidental. It has led people, throughout history, to believe that some tasteful higher being created them and that they inhabit a consciously designed world, like Super Mario, but this is an extravagant hypothesis, which goes far beyond the facts it is meant to explain. Before adopting it, it is important to explore more economical alternatives.
The answer likely lies within people. Beautiful things are those in which people find pleasure and seek out. They are, in neurobiological terms, things that stimulate one’s reward system. That explains why parents tend to find their young children beautiful, and why adults are attracted to nubile models and their images. It makes evolutionary sense to reward such feelings.
The evolutionary utility of the beauty of physical laws is somewhat less obvious, but no less real. Given the usefulness of accurately assessing the consequences of actions, people’s reward systems have evolved so that they derive joy from making successful predictions. Understanding the forces and patterns defining the world, and especially principles that apply — without changing — to a wide variety of situations, can help to improve predictions.
That people can often infer the behavior of complex objects or systems from knowledge of their parts — that they get back more than we put in — can help them to hone predictions further.
In short, because evolution predisposes people to find beautiful those things that help them understand the world correctly, it is no accident that they find the correct laws of nature beautiful. Viewed from this perspective, the apparent beauty of the laws of physics — people’s attraction to their symmetry and exuberance — is not surprising.
What remains mysterious is why they are comprehensible. A profound link between beauty and comprehensibility is an increasingly important source of scientific progress. Today’s frontiers of fundamental physics are far removed from everyday experience. They are difficult and expensive to access experimentally, and people cannot rely on their intuition to fill in the blanks. The patient accumulation of fact recommended by Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton and Sherlock Holmes is thus no longer practical.
Instead, people reverse the process, using guesswork to motivate experiment. First, people construct beautiful equations, then derive their consequences and, finally, craft experiments to test them. In recent decades, that strategy has proved remarkably successful. It has given birth to quantum chromodynamics, which resolves the central problem of nuclear physics, as well as predicting the Higgs particle and much else.
Rather than recognizing the beauty of laws otherwise discovered, people use principles of beauty — vast symmetry and a high ratio of output to input — to enable discovery. When this works, there exists an “anthropic” explanation of the laws’ beauty: If they were not beautiful, they would not have been found.
Frank Wilczek, a professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2004.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS