Daniel and Kelly’s Extraordinary Universe - What is a particle?

Episode Date: November 12, 2024

Daniel and Kelly try to get an solid mental picture of this particularly slippery conceptSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. The U.S. Open is here, and on my podcast, Good Game with Sarah Spain. I'm breaking down the players, the predictions, the pressure, and, of course, the honey deuses, the signature cocktail of the U.S. Open. The U.S. Open has gotten to be a very wonderfully experiential sporting event. To hear this and more, listen to Good Game with Sarah Spain, an IHeart women's sports production in partnership with deep blue sports and entertainment on the IHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your.

podcast. Brought to you by Novartis, founding partner of IHeart Women's Sports Network. Why are TSA rules so confusing? You got a hood of you. I'll take it all! I'm Manny. I'm Noah. This is Devin. And we're best friends and journalists with a new podcast called No Such Thing, where we get to the bottom of questions like that. Why are you screaming? I can't expect what to do. Now, if the rule was the same, go off on me. I deserve it. You know, lock him up. Listen to No Such Thing on the IHeart Radio app. Apple Podcast or wherever you get your podcasts.

No such thing. I'm Dr. Joy Hardin-Brandford, host of the Therapy for Black Girls podcast. I know how overwhelming it can feel if flying makes you anxious. In session 418 of the Therapy for Black Girls podcast, Dr. Angela Neal-Barnett and I discuss flight anxiety. What is not a norm is to allow it to prevent you from doing the things that you want to do, the things that you were meant to do. Listen to Therapy for Black Girls on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast.

From Tips for Healthy Living to the latest medical breakthroughs, WebMD's Health Discovered podcast keeps you up to date on today's most important health issues. Through in-depth conversations with experts from across the health care community, WebMD reveals how today's health news will impact your life tomorrow. It's not that people don't know that exercise is healthy. It's just that people don't know why it's healthy. and we're struggling to try to help people help themselves and each other. Listen to WebMD Health Discovered on the IHeart Radio app or wherever you get your podcasts. Your entire identity has been fabricated. Your beloved brother goes missing without a trace.

You discover the depths of your mother's illness. I'm Danny Shapiro. And these are just a few of the powerful stories I'll be mining on our upcoming 12th season of family secrets. We continue to be moved and inspired by our guests and their career. Rageously told stories. Listen to Family Secrets Season 12 on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. What is everything made out of? That seems like a simple question, and it also seems like a reasonable question.

I'd like to know what I'm made out of, what my food is made out of, what kittens are made out of, what lava is made out of. It's also an ancient question. And I think one, the people have been asking, since people have been asking, you know, any questions. The Greeks famous for asking questions in their sexy robes thought that everything was made of earth, air, water, and fire. And modern science, of course, has made a lot of progress here and uncovered some pretty weird and kind of shocking news about what everything is made out of. What seems like smooth and continuous matter is actually made up of tiny little bits that are woven together into some extreme. extremely fine mesh. And we are all made of the same basic bits, summed together to make me or you or kittens

or lava, the world is made of particles. But our curiosity doesn't just end because we have that answer. We want to know what are these basic bits? How do we think about them? What mental picture should we have in our mind? Are they tiny dots of stuff or rippling waves or some other concept that's too alien to even imagine? And what does it tell us about the universe that

These are its basic building blocks, or are they? So today on Daniel and Kelly's extraordinary universe, we'll be tackling the basic yet confusing, the simple yet deep, the important but impossible question, what is a particle? Kelly's Extraordinary Universe. I'm Kelly Weiner-Smith. I'm a parasitologist, and I'm particularly excited to be here today. You know, that might have been really cute if I had been able to pull it off, but I didn't. Hi, I'm Daniel. I'm a particle physicist, which means I probably

should know what a particle is. Well, we've got the right expert on the show today. So Daniel, here's what I'm wondering. So you've told me that you go to CERN in Switzerland to do your research. Why doesn't the United States have the biggest particle collider? Oh, my gosh. Wow, you are putting your foot in a sensitive spot right there. You know, for many years, it was a race between the Europeans and the Americans. So before CERN had the most powerful collider, we had one. It was outside of Chicago at Fermilab.

It was called the Tevatron. I did my Ph.D. there. I had one child born near that collider. And then my next child born near CERN's, you know, I had a kid at each collider, basically. Wait, one of your kids was born abroad. Yeah, my daughter, Hazel, was born in Switzerland, very close to CERN. That's cool. Did you have to not pay because you were in Europe and they just do health care better there?

Or what was that like? No, actually, they told us that when we showed up for the delivery, we had to bring 50,000 Swiss franc in cash if we didn't have local insurance. Whoa. So, yeah, that was going to be an issue. But then we discovered there's a law in Switzerland that if you're working there, which my wife was, they have to insure you. So even though she had all sorts of crazy pre-existing conditions, we could buy insurance for like 100 franc and then we didn't have to pay for anything.

So it was amazing, actually. Nice. Okay, that's good. And the insurance company even offered to retroactively cover a bunch of appointments where we hadn't yet had insurance. It was very different experience than American insurance. Yeah, that's incredible. I'm going to get depressed if we stand on this topic too long. Let's go back to particle colliders.

Okay, so you have had each of your children near very large particle collider. Why isn't the biggest one in the U.S.? Well, they planned to build the biggest one in the U.S., the Super Conducting Super Collider in Waxahatchee, Texas, and they started building it, and they spent billions of dollars digging a hole. But then the director of CERN at the time came and testified before Congress saying it was a big waste of money

because CERN was building one that was going to be bigger and better, and they should just cancel it. And Congress, for all sorts of complicated political reasons, listen to him and canceled the American Superconducting Super Collider. Wow. then the lead has been in Europe and probably will for a while. And the U.S. particle physics community is mostly focused on things like neutrinos and stuff like that.

So these days, if you want to do cutting edge, high energy particle physics at colliders, you got to go to Switzerland, which, hey, it's not too bad. The chocolate's amazing. No doubt. You know what? Actually, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, I'm not a huge fan of Swiss chocolate. Yeah, I know. You prefer Belgian?

I do. Yeah. There. I said it. So every once in a while, I'll hear about like astronomy. me students who want to get time on a telescope, but the telescope's all booked up and it takes forever. Does CERN have enough time for everyone? So like when that guy came to the U.S. and tanked our program, did he know he was going to have enough time for all of our scientists to

come over and do their work? Yeah, that's a great question. And people often ask me about that. Like, what's it like to set up your experiment at the collider? But the reality is very different. Telescopes and colliders don't work the same way. A telescope, you have to like point at the thing you want to look at. So you write a proposal to say, let's point our amazing telescope. but this one star I want to study. And then it's not pointing at any other stars. But a particle collider is very general. It always just does the same thing.

It smashes the particles together and you take pictures of it. And then afterwards, you analyze it. So everybody who uses the collider uses the same data. They're just looking for different kinds of particles. We don't have to point the collider at certain things. We don't swap out what we're using to take pictures.

Every few years, we turn the thing off, revamp it, build a new detector that's better, faster, higher resolution, or whatever. And then we make it as general as possible so everybody can use it. So you don't have to swap it out every day or every experiment. Everybody uses the same data set, which makes it kind of crazy because everybody's looking for discoveries in the same data set at the same time. So you could get scooped by any of your thousands of colleagues. Yikes. So do you actually need to be there in person or if it's just data, they can make that available anywhere, right? CERN has long been at the forefront of the internet. We invented the web at CERN, for example.

and we have excellent cloud computing. And so we transfer that data all around the world. We have collaborators from Japan to Singapore to South Africa to the northern tip of Canada, all over the world people analyze this data. Absolutely. You don't have to go. I go frequently because I have students there and postdocs are like on-site building stuff and helping keep it run.

But technically you don't have to look at the data. Cool. I mean, that's good and bad. I feel like ecologists, like we want to study exotic animals, but partly it's because we want to go there. And I imagine it's sort of the same with CERN. Like, it would be nice to go to Switzerland. But I guess the more important thing is answering the question.

It is nice to go to Switzerland. But then again, it's also nice to be able to do science without having thousands of dollars to go to Switzerland, which means smaller groups and not such fancy institutions, for example, can also participate. So it makes it a little bit more democratic, you know? Nice. That's awesome. Okay. So the whole point of having a large particle collider is so that you can figure out what those

particles are made of. Is that right? The whole point of having a particle collider is that. that you can say you're smashing particles together and nearly the speed of light, which sounds pretty awesome at parties. It does, yeah. Kind of like jousting for particles.

Yeah, well, particle colliders, I think, sort of have two different purposes. One is like, hey, let's take stuff and see what's inside it. Let's start with something familiar, you know, like the proton, and smash it open and see what it's made out of. And that's a continuation of like a long,

glorious tradition of taking the stuff around us apart to understand what it's made out of. You know, I'm made of molecules, which are made of. of atoms, which have a nucleus and an electron. The nucleus is made of protons. Let's go inside the proton. So that's definitely worthwhile and we do that. But colliders can actually do something else even more powerful, which kind of sounds like magic, which is that they can convert the mass of those protons into energy and then back into mass. And so what can come out of the

collision is not just a rearrangement of what went in. It's not like chemistry where you're like this hydrogen moved from this atom to over there and now you have a different kind of compound, you can annihilate these things. And then you basically have like a budget to make anything. And the stuff that comes out of the collision doesn't just have to be like a refashioned, rearranged version of what went in. You can have entirely new matter. It really is alchemy. So like protons go in. You have this intermediate state of frothing energy. And then you can make whatever the universe can make, dark matter, muons, all sorts of other stuff. You're not just rearranging the protons. There's got to be some rules, right, for what you can make?

Yes, exactly. That's the whole premise of particle physics. There are rules. There are patterns. Quantum mechanics tells us what's likely to happen in certain collisions. We look at those patterns. We notice, oh, this typically happens and it typically shoots out at those angles. What are the rules that control this? Absolutely, there are rules. But fundamentally, it's random, right? Like you do the same collision twice. You get two different answers because it's quantum mechanical. It's not determined by the initial conditions. So it's really a very powerful way to explore the universe because you don't have to know what's out there in order to discover it. You smash protons together often enough.

Eventually everything the universe can do, it will do. And you get to take pictures of it. Wow. It's like imagine if you could build a box and every kind of creature that could exist on Earth would randomly cycle through that box. You could just sit there and watch. You'd be like, oh, wow, I didn't know that existed. Oh, look at those. things? What are those? You know, that would be pretty powerful. That's basically what we can do

with particle physics. Now you have my attention. Although that box, I guess, would mostly be showing me like different species of bacteria, which would be a bummer. If you could show me different species of bugs, that would be great. Yeah, it'd be mostly beetles. You're like, wow, it's basically a beetle box, right? So there is that famous saying that, like, God is inordinately fond of beetles because there's this thought that beetles are the most common species group on the planet. But actually, quite often, those beetles are infected by more than one species of hymenopteran wasp. And so we think there might actually be more wasp species on the planet than there are beetles based on that observation. And probably those wasps are infected by viruses.

So they're more viruses than wasps. Yes. And those viruses are made of particles. And boom, boom, we're back to the topic of the episode. But what makes up a particle, Daniel? Exactly. So we smash particles together. We look at what's inside them.

We annihilate them to make new kinds of particles. We have this idea that particles are what everything is made out of. But I struggle still after decades in this field to understand this basic question, what is a particle? So I really want to explain to people what we do know and what we still don't know about this very basic concept that everybody talks about all the time. Well, first, let's hear what our listeners think. And if you would like to be a listener who tells us what you think, send us a send us. an email at questions at danielankelly.org and we will get you in the loop and send you a question from time to time and you can send us your answers so let's see here how folks answer the question

what is a particle a particle is a thing that interacts with other things a particle is really just an excitation in a field a particle is a defined portion of something something that is infinitesinely small to us. The smallest unit of energy or mass. I think that particles are the excitement of different spatial spots in interaction. A particle could be a very small vibrating field, a mass or non-mass object. Exists within what we would perceive as matter. A particle is a sub-microscopic kernel of energy and or energy and

matter. A particle is an excitation of a field. I do know that particles aren't just tiny bits of matter. I've heard that they're fields or strings or some other impossible to understand little bits of the universe. Particle is a ripple on a quantum field. Particle is the name we give to the smallest discrete quantum little bits that we know of and haven't been able to break up further yet. An expression of a field where the chances of that occurrence happening is the greatest there. The more think about it, the bigger this rabbit Warren is going. I think these answers perfectly encapsulate this episode.

I mean, really it's an excellent snapshot because a lot of what people have said in here is correct, but also there's a huge list of conflicting answers. right? You know, is it the smallest bit of stuff? Is it just something in space time? Is it actually an excitation of a field? You know, there's so many conflicting concepts for what a particle is. And is this one of those topics where at the end the answer is going to be, we really have no idea could be all of these things? Or is this a topic where at the end we're going to have a pretty clear answer? At the end, we're going to have a pretty clear answer, but not at the end of this episode. At the end of this journey, which might be in 10 or 100 years, unfortunately. Okay. I mean, we're going to get somewhere today. We have a pretty crisp, clear view of what a particle is mathematically, but we also know why that's not really satisfactory. And there's lots of big open questions about what that really means. So it's not like all a particle physics is a scam because we don't know what a particle is. We have a working definition. We also know that it's incomplete, just like most of science, right? Oh, yeah. Amen. All right. Well, so let's start with the historical perspective. Bring me back to the beginning. When did we start thinking about this question? Yeah, I think it's important. to trace the origin of this historically, because it still shapes how we think about the universe. And whenever you ask a big question about science,

you gotta think about like what kind of answer you're looking for. And in science, even though we try to be like mathematical and open-minded and let the data tell us what the universe is saying, we still need to understand that data. We still need to interpret it. We still need to cogitate on it in a way that makes sense to us. And we're sort of limited in our mental intuitive length.

We can't really grapple with things that we've never experienced that are completely alien to us. We tend to translate the unfamiliar into the familiar. You know, my favorite example of this is like, what happens when you drink a wine or you taste a new fruit? And you're like, oh, this fruit tastes kind of like a cherry and kind of like an apricot and whatever. And a little bit like a kiwi. You're explaining something new in terms of something you already know. And that makes a lot of sense. It's also what we do in science.

And so it's important like dig into like what are the sort of basic. mental building blocks we're using to understand this stuff. I think one of my favorite examples of that is the brain being compared to whatever technology is hot and new at the time. You know, like your brain is like a clock. Your brain is like a computer. And some of those analogies work in some ways. But, you know, having an analogy like that sometimes limits the way you actually attack a

problem. Yeah. But it also is what allows you to understand it. Right. So in the end, it's sort of how we understand everything. Yeah. And that's why it's useful to go back to like fifth century BC and talk about democratists. and his buddy Luseppus, because these folks were thinking about, hey, what is the universe made out of?

And they came up with this concept, or they're credited with this concept of what seems like smooth and continuous matter, you know, water seems smooth and continuous, air seems smooth, is actually made of tiny little bits of stuff. This is a big idea, right? This is a huge concept. This is like pulling back the veil on the world and saying, the world isn't the way that it seems. It's actually quite different. You know, it has like a resolution.

These days we're kind of familiar with this because you're used to things like, hey, I look at my TV screen. It looks like I'm just looking at a picture. But I know that if I put my eyeball close to the screen, I'll see pixels. This is basically saying the whole world, all matter is actually pixelated. It's built out of little bits instead of smooth and continuous. Did they have any thoughts about what the little bits were like? Like, do you get different bits in the sand and different bits in your skin or how fine, ingrained was this idea. Oh my God. They had hilarious ideas about what the little bits were. They thought

that everything was made of a little bit of stuff, but that stuff had different shapes. And, you know, they were a right on the spirit of it that they thought like the properties of the shape determined how we experienced it and its property. But for example, they thought that some things tasted sour because it was made of little sharp needle shaped atoms that like stabbed your tongue when you ate it. This is going to be so condescending, but that's such a cute idea. It is so. cute. I know. And they thought the things that were white were white because they were made of very smooth atoms. And they thought that your soul was made of atoms and that those atoms were particularly fine-grained. They were right in the spirit in that the behavior and the structure

of the atom really does determine like, hey, what is shiny and what conducts the electricity and what's liquid at room temperature. That's all true. They were just wrong on the details. But, you know, they couldn't see atoms. They were just imagining. And I'm really impressed. by this. I'm impressed by the courage to imagine that the universe is so fundamentally different from the way it seems, because that's really the scientific spirit, right? Yeah, totally. Okay, so we've got Democritus and his buddy, what was the buddy's name? Mispronounced as LeCupus. Lecupus. But I don't know the correct pronunciation. I hadn't heard of that person before. So you got the two of them and they're proposing that everything is made of small bits of stuff.

How long before we get some clarity on the fact that Sauer isn't just. just sharp little bits of stuff. Yeah, so they're credited with this idea probably came up earlier because remember, we give people credit because we have a written record of it. We have like a tiny fraction of everything the Greeks wrote, though very excitingly, they're now scanning burnt scrolls from an ancient Greek library. We're going to like double the amount of Greek writing we have very soon. But also, you know, we just don't have writing from other civilizations.

What did the Etruscans think? Ancient Chinese writing. So, you know, people give the Greeks a lot of credit, but we should remember, like other people thought about this stuff too. Ain't that always the way? Yeah, it's always the way. I know. And they use the word atom because Atomos in Greek means indivisible.

So that's where that comes from. And this is the origin of this idea that, you know, smooth stuff is actually made of little bits. And that still guides our mental picture. When I think particle, I still think tiny little dot of stuff like a little spinning ball or a grain of sand. That's sort of what it means to me. Like it's particular. Like if you say something is particulate, right? you mean it's made of these little bits. And so the words are powerful because they guide our mental

images. But it wasn't for a couple of thousand years that we had really more information. I mean, it was chemists like Dalton who were doing experiments on chemical reactions and discovering, you know, laws of ratios and proportions and the things were divisible by integers that really gave us a clue that, oh, there were like units of stuff going into these equations that you really needed two to one, to hydrogen to oxygen to make a certain amount of water, gives you a clue that it really is just clicked together out of these tiny little bits. So that was a really important clue, but it wasn't until the late 1800s that we really had the discovery of anything that we would today call a particle. And is that because it's so tiny, it probably depends on having the right technology to be able

to address that. And so did we just have to wait until the late 1800s because that's when we finally got the technology where we could start making a dent? Yeah, absolutely. And in the great tradition of particle physics, we didn't invent the technology that we used to make these discoveries. We borrowed it. In this case, we borrowed it from the circus. From the circus? Yes, exactly. All right, we're going to take a break. And when we come back, you're going to tell me about how the circus allowed us to understand the electron.

Have you ever wished for a change but weren't sure how to make it? Maybe you felt stuck in a change. a job, a place, or even a relationship. I'm Emily Tish Sussman, and on she pivots, I dive into the inspiring pivots of women who have taken big leaps in their lives and careers. I'm Gretchen Whitmer, Jody Sweeten, Monica Patton, Elaine Welteroff. I'm Jessica Voss. And that's when I was like, I got to go. I don't know how, but that kicked off the pivot of how to make the transition. Learn how to get comfortable pivoting because your life is going to be full of them. Every episode gets real about the why behind these changes

and gives you the inspiration and maybe the push to make your next pivot. Listen to these women and more on She Pivotts now on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. The U.S. Open is here, and on my podcast, Good Game with Sarah Spain, I'm breaking down the players

from rising stars to legends chasing history. The predictions will we see a first time winner and the pressure. Billy Jean King says pressure is a privilege, you know. Plus, the stories and events off the court and, of course, the honey deuses, the signature cocktail of the U.S. Open. The U.S. Open has gotten to be a very fancy, wonderfully experiential sporting event. I mean, listen, the whole aim is to be accessible and inclusive for all tennis fans, whether you play tennis or not. Tennis is full of compelling stories of late.

Have you heard about Icon Venus Williams' recent wildcard bids or the young Canadian, Victoria Mboko, making a name for herself? How about Naomi Osaka getting back to form? To hear this and more, listen to Good Game with Sarah Spain, an IHeart women's sports production in partnership with deep blue sports and entertainment on the IHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Presented by Capital One, founding partner of IHeart Women's Sports. I don't write songs. God write songs. I take dictation.

I didn't even know you've been a pastor for over 10 years. I think culture is any space that you live in that develops you. On a recent episode of Culture Raises Us podcast, I sat down with Warren Campbell, Grammy-winning producer, pastor, and music executive to talk about the beats, the business, and the legacy behind some of the biggest names in gospel, R&B, and hip-hop. This is like watching Michael Jackson talk about Thurley before it happened. Was there a particular moment where you realized just how instrumental music culture was to shaping all of our global ecosystem?

I was eight years old, and the Motown-25 special came on. and all the great Motown artists, Marvin, Stevie Wonder, Temptations, Diana Raw. From Mary Mary to Jennifer Hudson, we get into the soul of the music and the purpose that drives it. Listen to Culture raises us on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, I'm Kurt Brown-Oller. And I am Scotty Landis, and we host Bananas, the Weird News Podcasts with wonderful guests like Whitney Cummings. And tackle the truly tough questions. Why is cool mom an insult, but mom is fine?

No. I always say, Kurt's a fun dad. Fun dad and cool mom. That's cool for me. We also dig into important life stuff. Like, why our last names would make the worst hyphen ever. My last name is Cummings. I have sympathy for nobody.

Yeah, mine's brown-olar, but with an H. So it looks like brown-holer. Okay, that's, okay, yours might be worse. We can never get married. Yeah. Listen to this episode with Whitney Cummings and check out new episodes of bananas every Tuesday on the exactly right network listen to bananas on the iHeart radio app apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts

imagine that you're on an airplane and all of a sudden you hear this attention passengers the pilot is having an emergency and we need someone anyone to land this plane think you could do it It turns out that nearly 50% of men think that they could land the plane with the help of air traffic control. And they're saying like, okay, pull this, until this. Pull that. Turn this. It's just, I can do it my eyes close. I'm Manny. I'm Noah.

This is Devon. And on our new show, no such thing. We get to the bottom of questions like these. Join us as we talk to the leading expert on overconfidence. Those who lack expertise lack the expertise they need to recognize that they lack expertise. Tees. And then, as we try the whole thing out for real. Wait, what?

Oh, that's the run right. I'm looking at this thing. See? Listen to no such thing on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. All right, and we're back. And today we're talking about the freak show that is Particles. And Daniel's going to tell us about how we were able to understand the electron from technology developed for the circus. Back in the mid-1800s, there were circuses and there were these sideshows, and you know, you had bearded ladies or conjoined twins or whatever freak show you wanted to see, but also you had people with weird gizmos.

And in particular, somebody invented basically the cathode ray tube. But a cathode ray tube back then was actually called a crooks tube, and basically you have a glass, and you put electricity on one. side and electricity on the other side. And we now know what happens is that electrons boil off of one and fly through it and hit the other. But if you left a little bit of gas in that tube, then the electrons would hit that gas and gas would glow. People were making these tubes because they glowed in this eerie way and that was pretty cool. And you know, back in the 1800s, this was a magical thing to see that somebody could build this thing and it would glow green or glow red or whatever. And so these Crooks tubes were very popular.

on side shows. And then later scientists were like, hmm, what's going on here? Let's see if we can understand what's going on. And J.J. Thompson in the late 1800s used it to discover the electron. How do you go from, oh neat, that tube lights up to and that's because of electrons. Yeah. So J.G. Thompson was trying to understand what is lighting up here. And they already called these things cathode rays because they could see paths. Like definitely there's a line of stuff moving through them. And they were like, what are these rays? And, made of something. A lot of people tried to understand this and failed, but he had like the best vacuum, so the best control of this experiment. And he did it the most systematically. What he did

was he put these tubes under electric fields. And he was like, hmm, can I bend these rays? And then he tried with magnetic fields. Like, oh, can I bend the rays this way and that way? And he tried with combinations of them. And so we had an understanding of electromagnetism back then. We understood that electric field, pull things that have charged and magnetic fields can bend them. So from this, he determine, oh, these cathode rays are little bits of charge. There's charge flowing here because I can bend it with fields. And so that was really fascinating. And then he very carefully balanced the two fields and he was able to measure the mass of the thing. And that right there is the origin of the sort of concept of a particle. He was like, oh, these rays are made of tiny little

bits of stuff that have a charge and a mass. And what he's doing conceptually there is very important. He's saying there's a point in space and I'm going to put two labels on it. I'm going to say it has a charge and it has a mass and those two things cannot be separated. He tried to separate the mass and the charge and he couldn't. So he's like now in his mind he has these little dots that are moving through space and he's putting these mental labels on them. And that's really the origin of the modern concept of a particle. Okay. So I'm imagining being in his lab. He's got this ray. He's got a magnet on one side and he does the magic and he's got that line. Is it? like a bolt of lightning? Like, does it go from one side to another and you can see all of it? And if so, how does he make the jump from there's a line that lights up and bends towards the magnet to, and that line is made up of lots of little tiny things that come to be called electrons? You know what I mean?

Yeah, so what you should be imagining is sort of like what a fluorescent light bulb looks like now. It's like long and thin and filled with glowing gas, right? Except there were like thinner lines. So these are very clearly rays. And you're right that he measured that there's sort of a flow of charge, right? So there was a screen on one end, and you can see these glowing dots landing. But he also measured the mass.

That's what told him that this was made of little bits because he could measure actually their charge to mass ratio. You couldn't measure the mass itself, but he measured the charge to mass ratio by seeing how much they were deflected by the magnetic fields. That's the thing that gave him the clue that it was made of little bits, not just some continuous stream. because he can identify a charge to mass ratio for these bits. And he almost sent the world down a crazy path where my job title would be different. Because he didn't call this thing a particle. He didn't call it an electron.

He used the word corpuscule. He thought that was a really cool name for this thing that he had discovered. Sounds like a kind of acne to me. To me, it sounds like an especially explosive kind of Zit. Yeah. So you were almost a corpuscal. or a corpuscular physicist. Fortunately, the person who discovers the thing doesn't always get to name it.

And later on, people adopted the name electron suggested by Fitzgerald and Lawrence and other folks. And so fortunately, the word corpuscular didn't hang on. But that was really the seminal experiment where people discovered, okay, the world has made of the little bits and we can put labels on them. And these days, we have so many labels for particles. we put spin on them. We put charge, of course. We put other kinds of charge. Every particle has a charge for electromagnetism,

is a charge for the weak force, a charge for the strong force. It has a mass. This is really part of the concept of a particle is a little dot in space with labels that we put on it. And it sounds like it gets complicated pretty quick. So let's back up a little bit.

So we've got mass in charge. What is our next historical advancement? Well, next came Rutherford because people were wondering, all right, so these things exist, these corpuscules, or these electrons, as we later call them, but how do you use that to make up the world? It's sort of like the twofold question we were talking about before. One thing you can do is try to answer like, what is everything around us made out of by taking it apart? The other is just to ask, what can the universe do? Like,

not necessarily how am I built out of the universe, but what is the universe capable of sort of holistically? And so Thompson discovered, oh, the universe can make electrons. People were wondering, okay are those electrons part of who we are and you know they were speculating we think electrons are probably inside the atom but nobody knew yet what the atom structure was we knew that we had chemicals and we had these different atoms and periodic table the elements was a thing but nobody understood how the atom itself was built and we suspected electrons were in there but we didn't understand like well what's balancing that charge and so Thompson proposed that like well we have electrons because I discovered them and so they must be the building block of everything and they're in bed

bettered in like a jelly, like a positive jelly that balances the charge. That was sort of his idea. But then Rutherford came along and said, well, let's see. And he took a sheet of gold foil and he shot radiation at it. And he wanted to understand like, what is that positive stuff made out of? And if that positive stuff was like spread out like jelly, then he would expect that his particles would mostly just slop through it. But what he saw was that most of the time they just shoot right through the foil.

but occasionally they bounce right back. What he concluded from that was that the positive charges weren't spread out evenly, but they were clustered into these little hard dots. So most of the time the radiation missed it, sometimes they bounced right back. That gives us the more modern picture of the atom as a positive nucleus surrounded by electrons. Okay, so if we are still trying to think of this as a jelly, then we should be picturing like that strawberry jelly that has seeds in it. And those seeds are like the nucleus that the electron was bouncing.

off of. Is that right? Exactly. And so now we have like electrons and we also have the nucleus, which later on we discover is made out of protons and neutrons. And so we're starting to build up our catalog of particles to try to understand like what is the world made out of what are these particles. And at this point, the concept of a particle is still, it's a dot in space that we could put labels on. And one of those labels is mass. But then that was all upended when we discovered the next particle, which is the photon. Why does it always get more complicated? I know. Photons mess everything up, right?

My goodness. So around the turn of the century, Einstein was thinking about what happens when you shine light on metal. Very bright beam of light on metal. What happens is electrons boil off. This is something people have seen, but not really understood because they were confusing results about what happened when you made the beam brighter. People expected that if you make the beam brighter, which if light is aware,

means that the EM fields are oscillating with larger amplitude, so more energy, then they thought that electrons should get kicked off with more energy. But instead, what they saw was electrons kicked off with the same energy, but more of them. So instead of having faster moving electrons, you have more electrons at all the same speed. And it was Einstein who figured out what that meant. What it means is that the light you're shining at the metal is not a continuous beam perfectly smooth the way Maxwell imagined, but made of chunks, made of bits called photons. And what was happening is that each electron can only absorb one. Like the electron absorbs a photon or it doesn't.

If it absorbs a photon, it gets kicked off and it always has that photon's energy. You can't eat two photons or ten photons. And so when you make the beam brighter, you're shooting more photons, more electrons get to eat a photon. But because it's based out of these chunks, it's not smooth and continuous. It's basically a one-on-one interaction. You said that was Einstein who helped figure that out, right? So that wasn't that long ago. A hundred years. Yeah, we went from like nothing to amazing detail in the last hundred years. I know. It's really incredible what we've understood. And this is a huge advance because now we're like, oh, wow, light is also made of little mini servings, right? There's a minimum amount of light. Like you take a flashlight and you start to

turn it down and down and down. You can't have it be arbitrarily dim. Like there's one setting where it's dark, completely dark, but then there's a minimum brightness. You can't shoot half a photon out of a flashlight or one and a half photons. It's quantized, you know, it's not continuous and smooth. But this is confusing because they were going to call a photon a particle. A minute ago, we said a particle, something that has like mass and charge, photons don't have mass. So already your mental conception of like, oh, a particle is a little bit of stuff, well, this photon doesn't have any stuff to it. You know, you can't catch up to a photon and look at it.

You can't hold it in your hand. And yet we think of it as a particle. So already 100 years ago, we had to like back up and broaden our understanding of like, what is a particle if it's not a little bit of stuff the way Democritus was imagining? And doesn't it get even more confusing yet? Because then we decide that photons aren't necessarily particles. Sometimes maybe there are waves. And at this point, you're like, I'm majoring in biology.

It gets more confusing before. it gets more interesting and more clear. But yes, there's definitely a period of confusion there. And I do think that's kind of a filter. Some people hear that and they're like, I need to understand this and learn more. I'm going to become a physicist. And some people are like, I'm going to go study eels. And that's cool because eels can make waves too.

You know, they're pretty wiggly. And electric fields and yeah, yeah. Yeah. And something you said I want to get back to, which is like sometimes they're particles. I mean, a photon is always a photon. What is a photon? Is it a particle? Is it a wave?

Like, really, it's neither the way that that new fruit is not a cherry or an apricot. It's not sometimes a kiwi because it has hints of it in your mouth. It's something new and weird. And a photon has behaviors that we sometimes describe in a particle way. And behaviors we sometimes describe in a wave-like way, but it's not choosing, now I'm a wave, now I'm a particle. It's always a photon. It's just that none of these descriptions perfectly capture what it is. The way that I can't perfectly describe you.

I mean, you're a mother, you're a partner, you're a pod. No, none of those things define who you are. You're Kelly, right? And you're sometimes well described by one of those labels. Right. Yes. Right. So this is another one of those problems like brains are like a computer.

Yes, but not entirely. And by putting these labels on it, sometimes it helps you think about it, but also sometimes it makes things more confusing. So let's dig into what it means, though, because the thing people were trying to confront, the thing people were struggling with is like, yeah, Einstein tells us light is made out of these little packets. So we should think of them as like individuals. but also we had all these experiments showing that light had wave-like behavior.

You know, it like interferes with itself. There's diffraction. There's all sorts of stuff that we only usually attribute to waves. And so people have this idea in their mind, and they hear a lot about the particle wave duality that sometimes you use wave to describe light and sometimes you use particles to describe light. And later on, it got more confusing because we saw that electrons do this too.

Like electrons have wave-like behavior. You could take beams of electrons and they will interfere with themselves, as if there are waves. But, you know, electron is like the original OG particle. So what's going on here? And there is definitely a way to think about this that's not, sometimes it's a wave and then it switches suddenly to a particle. It's the more quantum mechanical way to think about it, which is rarely like a way to think

more clearly about stuff, but you know, it is the way that we think about it. And the quantum mechanical way to think about this without getting heavy into the math is to say that what controls where a particle goes is a mathematical equation that looks like a wave equation. We call it the Schrodinger equation, and it tells us what's likely to happen to a particle. So an electron enters an experiment. The Schrodinger equation tells us,

oh, is it likely to go left, or is it likely to go right? A photon goes through a slit. The Schrodinger equation tells us, is it likely to go here? Is it likely to go there? It's going to land on a screen. The shortening equation tells us

what's the probability of something happening. So it's wave-like in that an equation that looks a lot like other wave equations, the equations we use to describe oceans and sound and all sorts of wave-like behavior, which is amazingly everywhere in the universe, and we can have a whole conversation about like why is the universe all seem like waves? There's a wavy equation that describes where this stuff is likely to go. But then there's something weird that happens, which is the universe has to go from, here are all the things the photon could do, and here's the various probabilities of it going

here or there. Then we do the experiment. We want to know the answer. The universe does this thing where it picks one. It's like, all right, of all the possibilities, I'm going to decide this photon goes over there. And this other photon is going to go over here, and this third photon is going to go there. And it's sort of amazing. And it's a process we fundamentally do not understand how the universe goes from, here's the list of probabilities to I'm going to pick one. But this is what people imagine when they think wave like to particle like. Wave like is like when the universe is still maintaining all the possibilities. Particle like is like I've looked at it. I've measured it. I see a dot on the screen. So I'm thinking of it as

acting like a particle because it's here, has the location. And we think of particles as like it is somewhere. It's a tiny dot in space with labels. So when we force the universe to tell us where did that photon go, we call it being particle-like because we put a location on it. Okay. And is this the right way to think about all particles or do some particles follow this wave function thing and other particles don't?

This is the 1930s way to think about all particles. You can use this to describe photons, you can use it to describe electrons, you can use it to describe any particle. This is the shorteninger equation, and it works really, really well for individual particles. And there's deep fundamental problems with it still. Like we don't understand when the universe goes from, here are all your possibilities to actually we're going to do this one. People call this the wave function collapse or quantum collapse. And philosophically, it makes no sense because it doesn't happen when a photon is measured by a quantum particle. like a photon can interact with an electron and maintain all of its possibilities.

But if a photon hits an eyeball, you see it here or you don't see it there, it collapses. And so really this wave versus particle thing is about maintaining quantum possibilities or collapsing to one. That's really the core of it. And that is not something we understand why that happens, when that happens, if that happens, huge open question in physics and in philosophy. And what is a particle sort of sits right at the nexus of that? So we've mapped this question of like, what is a particle to, hey, when do quantum wave functions collapse and do they? But that's not a question we have an answer to. So I'm not sure how helpful it is.

But the modern view of what is a particle is actually a little bit different from this sort of 1930s concept of a wave function and the Schrodinger equation. Well, let's take a break and then we'll get modern. Have you ever wished for a change but weren't sure how to make it? Maybe you felt stuck in a job, a place, or even a relationship. I'm Emily Tish Sussman, and on she pivots, I dive into the inspiring pivots of women who have taken big leaps in their lives and careers. I'm Gretchen Whitmer, Jody Sweeten. Monica Patton. Elaine Welter-off.

I'm Jessica Voss. And that's when I was like, I got to go. I don't know how, but that kicked off the pivot of how to make the transition. Learn how to get comfortable pivoting because your life is going to be full of them. Every episode gets real about the why behind these changes and gives you the inspiration and maybe the push to make your next pivot. Listen to these women and more on She Pivots, now on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. The U.S. Open is here. And on my podcast, Good Game with Sarah Spain, I'm breaking down the players from rising stars to legends chasing history.

The predictions will we see a first time winner and the pressure? Billy Jean King says pressure is a privilege, you know. Plus, the stories and events off the court and, of course, the honey deuses, the signature cocktail of the U.S. Open. The U.S. Open has gotten to be a very fancy, wonderfully experiential sporting event. I mean, listen, the whole aim is to be accessible and inclusive for all tennis fans, whether you play tennis or not. Tennis is full of compelling stories of late. Have you heard about Icon Venus Williams' recent wildcard bids or the young Canadian Victoria Mboko making a name for herself.

How about Naomi Osaka getting back to form? To hear this and more, listen to Good Game with Sarah Spain, an Iheart women's sports production in partnership with deep blue sports and entertainment on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Presented by Capital One, founding partner of IHart Women's Sports. Culture eats strategy for breakfast. I would love for you to share your breakdown on pivoting. We feel sometimes like we're leaving a part of us.

behind when we enter a new space, but we're just building. On a recent episode of Culture Raises Us, I was joined by Volisha Butterfield, media founder, political strategist, and tech powerhouse for a powerful conversation on storytelling, impact, and the intersections of culture and leadership. I am a free black woman who worked really hard to be able to say that. I'd love for you to break down why was so important for you to do C. You can't win as something you didn't create. From the Obama White House to Google to the Grammysia's Journey is a masterclass in shifting culture and using your voice to spark change. A very fake capital-driven environment and society will have a lot of people tell half-truths. I'm telling you, I'm on the energy committee. Like, if the energy is not right, we're

not doing it, whatever that it is. Listen to Culture raises us on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, I'm Kurt Brown-Oller. And I am Scotty Landis and we host Bananas. The Weird Podcasts with wonderful guests like Whitney Cummings. And tackle the truly tough questions. Why is cool mom an insult, but mom is fine? No. I always say, Kurt, it's a fun dad. Fun dad and cool mom.

That's cool for me. We also dig into important life stuff. Like, why our last names would make the worst hyphen ever. My last name is Cummings. I have sympathy for nobody. Yeah, mine's brown-olar, but with an H. So it looks like brown holer. Okay, that's, okay, yours might be worse. We can never get married.

Yeah. Listen to this episode with Whitney Cummings and check out new episodes of bananas every Tuesday on the exactly right network. Listen to bananas on the IHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to Pretty Private with Ebene, the podcast where silence is broken and stories are set free. I'm Ebeney. Tuesday, I'll be sharing all new anonymous stories that would challenge your perceptions and give you new insight on the people around you. On Pretty Private, we'll explore the untold experiences of women of color who faced it all.

Childhood trauma, addiction, abuse, incarceration, grief, mental health struggles, and more, and found the shrimp to make it to the other side. My dad was shot and killed in his house. Yes, he was a drug dealer. Yes, he was a confidential. format, but he wasn't shot on the street corner. He wasn't shot in the middle of a drug deal. He was shot in his house, unarmed. Pretty Private isn't just a podcast. It's your personal guide for turning storylines into lifelines. Every Tuesday, make sure you listen to Pretty Private from

the Black Effect Podcast Network. Tune in on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. So we are up to the 1930s, and now you are going to tell us about our more modern understanding of particles. Yeah, so this idea that particles are these weird quantum objects and where they go is controlled by a wavy equation. But sometimes we can make their measurements and force the universe to tell us where they are in an instant. and they have these properties, mass, sometimes, charge, sometimes, spin, sometimes. That's sort of an old-fashioned view. When we started dealing with lots and lots of particles, we discovered, oh, this math is kind of clunky.

Like if you have 10 particles or 100 particles, it becomes really awkward to have a shortening equation for each individual one and try to bring it together. The math just becomes impossible. And so people, instead of thinking about like one wave function for each particle, they're like, let's just think about all the particles as if they're wiggling the same field. So instead of imagining like an individual person waving their hand, now imagine like a crowd at a football stadium and they're doing the wave. So add this thing to your brain, which is a field, right? A field in space is just like a set of numbers. I say over here to my left,

the field has a value of seven and over here to my right, field is a value of three or two or whatever. And there are wavy equations that determine what is the value of the field. And so you can have waves in that field. You can have like ripples in that field where like a large value of the field moves through space from here to there. And then we think about particles as those ripples in the field. So we take like individual wave functions. We try to sort of stitch them together into a single field and think about all the particles as wiggles in the same field. So what assumptions do you have to make to make that transition. Do you have to assume that they don't interact with each other

in a way that changes the behavior of the group? Oh, great question. You don't have to assume that because you can have lots of different kinds of fields. You can have some fields where the particles don't interact with each other. For example, photons. Photons don't interact with each other.

Photons only interact with particles that have electric charge, like they will be eaten by an electron or a proton can give off a photon. But photons ignore each other. Like they wiggle right past each other, two beams of light cross without touching or bouncing off each other. Other particles do interact with each other, like gluons, for example. Gloons bounce off of other gluons, emit other gluons, eat other gluons. It gets very complicated and messy because gluons talk to each other all the time.

So you don't have to assume that, but you build that into each field. We have a new mathematical framework that allows us to make different kinds of fields. Some fields are very simple. They're just numbers, like the Higgs field. It's just a number in space. Other fields, like the electromagnetic field, at every point in space, you have an arrow. You have a direction. You have three numbers, basically.

So now imagine, like, a bunch of arrows filling space. And when a photon is moving through that field, what's happening is those arrows are growing and shrinking, they're changing direction. It's oscillations in these fields that we think about as particles. But we do have to make one important assumption, which has a lot of consequences, which is that every electron is basically the same. and every photon is basically the same, because they're all part of the same field.

It was a question for a long time, like, why does every electron have exactly the same mass and exactly the same charge? Why does every photon zero mass? Why are they all identical, right? And the answer is kind of beautiful. Well, they're all wiggles in the same field. It's not like the universe made a bunch of electrons

and it was really good at it, so it was super precise. And the electron factory is like high precision engineering, so they're really, you know, ball's on perfect. It's because they literally are the same thing. There are just ripples in the same field. Well, that's convenient because it's easier to think of it as a field, right, than as a particle. Mathematically, it's much easier because if you want to think about like particles being created, oh, that's just energy going into the field. Whereas in the Schrodinger equation, it's like pretty

hard to create a particle and add its wave function to your calculations. And the same thing with destroying particles. It's really awkward if you're thinking about it one particle at a time. and very natural if you think about it as a group of particles. The universe threw us a softball. Thanks, universe. Okay, so when I was in high school, I learned about electrons and protons and neutrons. I don't remember hearing about quarks, but, you know, since high school, I've learned that protons are made up of quarks, but I think of particles as being the smallest things

that make up everything. And so if quarks make up protons, does that mean protons aren't particles? Or are they both particles, but maybe different categories of particles? What's going on here? Oh, that's a great question. So we mostly use these fields to describe fundamental particles, things that we think are not made of anything else. So the photon and the electron, et cetera, those particles are wiggles and fields that are just a basic element of space itself. But you can totally use the same math to describe wiggles in other stuff, like,

water in the ocean or sound waves in the air. These are just wave equations and the universe is kind of wavy. And you can also identify particles of those fields, quanta of those fields. A phonon, for example, is a packet of sound the way a photon is a packet of light. The math is the same. It's just what's wiggling is not fundamental universe stuff,

whatever that is, but something else, water or air or plasma or whatever. So we distinguish these things from particles, by calling them quasi-particles. But the point is that the math still works. All right, so to your question about the proton, we know the proton is not a fundamental particle. It's made of quarks.

So there's no proton field, right? Well, actually, if you zoom out far enough so you can't see the inside of the proton, it kind of acts like a particle that moves around the universe the way a particle does. And you can pretend that there is a proton field. You can write it down mathematically and use to describe the motion of the proton as a particle.

And the proton field is like an approximate description of the cork fields dancing together. The way they interact together makes it seem like there is a proton field. And until you get enough energy that breaks that proton apart, it all works just fine. And the same, of course, might be true of the electron. We think that there is an electron field,

a fundamental part of space. But if the electron is just made of other little particles, which are the true fundamental particles, then the electron field is just an approximate description of those fields dancing together. All right. So where do you go from there? So in this picture, particles are not little bits of stuff, right? You have to give up that whole idea, that whole mental picture we've had since Democritus that said the universe is made of particles and particles are little bits of stuff. Now we say, well, particles are not

little bits of stuff. They're wiggles in these fields. And that means something really deep. It means that the universe is not made of particles. It's made. of fields. Particles are just something that happens to fields. There's just something fields can do. You know, it's like discovering, okay, ice cream exists in the world, but actually it's not fundamental. The universe is not made of ice cream. There's times when you don't have ice cream. There's whole periods in the universe when there was no ice cream. No! I know it's hard to imagine. There was a moment when somebody invented ice cream for the first time,

right? And the universe was filled with light. Yes. What it means that we've gone one level deeper, though, right? This is the whole goal. It's like, what really is at the foundation? What is everything made out of? And this takes quite a left turn. It says, yeah, the universe is not built a little bits. Those bits are actually just ripples in these fields that fill the universe.

And I want people to really have an accurate visual image of what these fields are because people think about, okay, a particle is a ripple in the field or it's an excitation in the field. And you should understand that a field really is a wavy kind of thing. You can do the same wavy kind of things that other fields can do. You know, like imagine a guitar string. What does a guitar string do when you pluck it? You pull it back.

And so now it's like you're stretching the string, right? And we say in physics, now it has a lot of potential energy because a lot of tension in there it really wants to go back to its relaxed position. What happens when you relax it? What happens when you let it go? Well, it flies back to that relaxed position, but now it's moving really fast.

So now has a lot of speed, right? A lot of kinetic energy. So it doesn't actually stop there when it gets back to the relaxed position. It keeps going and it bends the other way. And it oscillates back and forth and back and forth and back and forth. It sloshes back and forth between potential energy and kinetic energy. That's what a wave equation. That's a wave-like phenomenon, something that sloshes back and forth.

That's what fields are doing. Fields, you can think of them as these numbers in space, but those numbers are sloshing back and forth. The field itself has potential energy and kinetic energy. the changing of those numbers has a speed to it. And when we solve the wave equations for fields, what is fundamentally quantum field theory, the bedrock of modern particle physics,

that's what the solutions look like. Like the Higgs field is oscillating. When we say a photon is an oscillation in the electromagnetic field, we mean the values of the field, those numbers and space, those arrows, they're moving, they're wiggling, they're sloshing around. So when I was in high school, we got the like plum pudding model.

So yes, I do think now about particles as like a raisin embedded in something and not as like a wave function. If I were in high school right now, would I be taught something more like what you just said? How long have we known about this stuff? Why does this feel new is what I'm asking? Is it new or did I forget? It's a great time to ask me this question because my daughter who's taking high school chemistry right now is learning about this stuff and asking me questions about it. So I'm getting like a front row seat to how are people taught about the nature of matter in high school. And yeah, they're taught about the plum pudding model.

Though just for the record, the plum pudding model is not a modern conception. It was like disproved by Rutherford, right? People thought, maybe the universe is filled with this jelly of positive stuff. It sounds tasty, but it's not the way that we understand it. It's in contrast to having like a hard, dense nucleus at the core. So the plum pudding model, they teach it to them and then they throw it out. But they don't really go very deep into like the quantum mechanics of it, even in AP chemistry, I discovered. They don't really talk about this stuff.

And they certainly don't talk about particle physics in AP physics. So in high school, you don't really get a whole lot of this modern stuff. I teach modern physics at the college level. And that's the first time we really give people an understanding of the 1930s concept of what is a particle and how does quantum mechanics work. And then we don't show them quantum fields until like graduate school. So I didn't learn about quantum fields until I was. was in like 18th grade. So, you know, this is not the kind of stuff that percolates mostly into high school.

Maybe fortunately, maybe unfortunate, I would love to have some of these ideas introduced earlier. So you think if you talked to just about any recent graduate of high school, they're probably still thinking of electrons as particles that stay in one spot. Tiny little dots orbiting the nucleus. You know, electrons don't orbit. They don't have specific locations. They can't be in one spot and have a specific velocity.

You can measure them here, you can measure them there, but they're weird quantum objects. They don't go from here to there. They don't obey all the intuitive rules that you expect things that have specific locations to do. So we can all feel good about our advanced physics knowledge now. Yes, exactly. You have pushed well beyond high school and even college physics. And, you know, I have to underscore how powerful this quantum field theory approach is to say that all particles are just ripples and fields and the universe fundamentally is made of these fields,

space is filled with many kinds of fields. You have one for the electron, one for the Miwan, one for the upcork, one for the downcork. We have more than a dozen fields that fill space. This is a really powerful way to think about the universe. We see patterns in these fields, how energy flows from one to the other. Are there symmetries that they observe? It's allowed us to make really powerful, very accurate calculations of all sorts of stuff that we see happening in particle experiments. And so it's really beautiful and really crisp and really clear. And I think that most particle physicists, this is what they think about or most theoretical physicists imagine the universe as filled with fields and particles as just ripples in them. But of course, it's a field filled with

controversy. And so not everybody agrees with that view. There are lots of people who have a very different concept of what a particle is and fundamentally how it all works at the bottom level. So to back up real quick, this fields theory has produced loads of testable hypothesis. that have been tested and panned out, but there are still some people who think maybe something else is going on that explains these results. And what are they proposing is happening then?

They suggest the fields are a fiction, that the fields don't really exist, that the fields are basically just a calculational tool we use in our minds to explain what we see. Because in the end, you can't observe a field. You can't directly see a field. It's always an intermediate thing. Like what you can see are particles.

You see those little dots on your screen or you see the electron deflected in your cathode ray. It's always particle-like, I'm doing air quotes, when we see it. And particles are what we observe, they're what we interact with. Yes, we can use fields to explain them. And yes, we can think about fields as being out there. But it's hard to argue philosophically that we know fields are real in some way other than we can use them to calculate these experiments. You can't like really directly see them.

see them. And lots of famous physicists like Nima Arkani Hamid, one of the maybe most brilliant modern particle physicists calls them a convenient fiction. Huh. So would someone like Nima then argue it's all just particles? Like the field thing is throwing us off track. We were on track with the particles and we just got to stick with thinking about particles and figure out a way to measure at that level instead. Yeah. And here I want to take the opportunity to disentangle something you hear about a lot in popular science. People probably hear, oh, particles or ripples in a field, but they also hear this other story, like what happens when two electrons repel each other? Oh, they exchange a photon. They're passing a photon back and forth, right? What you're doing

there is rejecting the field picture. The field picture of what happens when electrons push on each other is an electron makes a field around it, the electromagnetic field, right? And that field pushes on the other electron. That's the field picture. People who don't believe in they're like, just explain it all in terms of particles. You don't need the field. What happens when an electron pushes on another electron is it throws a photon at the other one. And so you can either explain everything in terms of particles that are pushed by fields or you can explain it just in terms of particles and say, you don't need fields. Just go particles all the way down. There are particles we observe and they push on each other by passing other particles between themselves. So you can

basically replace the fields with an infinite number of particles doing all the pushing and pulling and other stuff that some people say fields are doing. And the frustrating slash confusing slash amazing thing is that you do the calculations, you get the same answer. So is it particles? Is it fields? We can't tell the difference because the two theories

mathematically are equivalent. It's like either you can imagine these fields, which fill space, which are beautiful and elegant, but kind of weird, like what are they? Or you can say, I'm gonna replace those fields by a bunch of particles flying around doing that same work. And are you a field guy? I was a field's guy until I read this book about whether science can be done without math.

You know, people wonder, like, is math invented or is it something in our minds? And there's a guy who developed an alternative theory of gravity that doesn't use any math, no numbers at all. It's called science without numbers. And it's really weird. It's very alien. You read it and you're like, what was this guy smoking and where can I get some? But he philosophically pulls it off. He shows that you don't need to have fields, essentially.

And the crucial insight in that book is to get rid of fields, because fields are like numbers in space. So he divorces physics for mathematics by ditching fields. My favorite part of the story, the guy's last name, Fields. So Professor Fields gets rid of Fields. The field, fieldless theory of physics. There's lots of jokes you could make there. But it made me wonder, you know, like are fields just something we think about or are they actually out there? When aliens come and talk to us about their theory of physics, will they have fields in it or will they have schmields or something totally different?

So have you dodged my question? Or are you saying that you're a particle person? I'm saying I don't know. I used to be a fields person, but now I teach the controversy. Got it. Okay. So when you first said that there were people who reject fields, I thought that was going to get us into string theory. Are we going to get to string theory too?

There's three options. So there's particles, fields, and strings. Is that right? There's more than three options, unfortunately. Okay. So there's lots of directions to go here. People also wonder like, well, what are these fields? Are fields the Benrock, the truth of the universe at the firmament?

Is that the thing that has to exist? And it's sort of unsatisfactory because like, well, why are there all these different fields? Why do we have the electron and the muon, which is like an weird, heavy version of the electron? Why are there these obvious patterns among the fields that we can't explain? And one explanation for that are strings to say, well, none of these things are what's at the bedrock. Underneath at all is something else. And strings are this idea that the universe is not made out of field, but instead these one-dimensional bits of matter that can do wavy-like stuff. They can wiggle and they can dance and they can wiggle in various ways.

And if you're zoomed out far enough so you can't see the actual string bits themselves, when they wiggle one way, it looks like an electron field. and when they wiggle another way, it looks like a muon field. And when we wiggle a third way, it looks like a photon. And so all these fields are actually just different wiggles in these strings. This is another beautiful bit of mathematics that nobody's proven to be true or not, but might represent what's going on underneath all of this, right? So maybe particles are ripples and fields, which are just wiggles in strings. So string theory is still a popular contender.

I thought maybe string theory was waning, but I'm, you know, not in this field. What's the current state of string theory? String theory was very popular in the 90s. It seemed very exciting. People discovered this math and could do all sorts of fun stuff with it. And they've done a lot of fun stuff, but they haven't been able to prove that it's true because they talk about the mathematics of the strings, but nobody can see these strings. The strings are too small.

In order to see the strings themselves, you'd need like a collider the size of the solar system. And we don't have the funds for that. And so until they make a prediction that we can actually test, it's like, oh, string theory, if it's true, we should be able to see this thing. Then we don't know if it's just mathematics or if it's actually a description of the universe. And so there's been a lot of people who are negative about string theory for that reason. I still think it's exciting, but there are other ideas out there about, you know, what the universe could be made out of. What else? As you were saying earlier, we tend to think about the brain as made out of whatever is the latest technology.

in the same way we try to think about the universe that way. Like the advent of quantum computing makes us think about qubits and information. And there's a whole line of argument that I think we should talk about probably in another episode about whether the whole universe is just a quantum computer and particles are like patterns and the flow of information in this quantum computer. There are folks who do these experiments that discover that if you build a space time from entangled cubits that these patterns natural. arise, which have properties that align well with the particles that we see. This is all really very speculative stuff, but it's sort of the forefront of current research. People wondering, like, what's underneath all this stuff? Maybe it really is even different than democratist imagined or Schrodinger or even Feynman.

What is a qubit? A qubit is a quantum analogy to a classical bit, like in your computer, a bit is something that can be zero or one. It's like the minimum piece of information you can have. It's boiled down to just two options, like a switch you can flip. And a normal bit is in one state, but a quantum bit has a probability to be in one state or in the other. It's not necessarily in one or the other. So it's a qubit is a quantum bit.

And people wonder if fundamentally the universe is made out of qubits that are somehow woven together to make space and time and our reality. But we'll dig into that in a whole other episode. Awesome. All right. So if we tomorrow were to find out which one of the... of these explanations was correct? What would that change? So that would be satisfying, but where could we go from there that would be even cooler? Like, what doors would that open up for us? Yeah, wow. Awesome question. You're basically asking like, why do we care about any of this? What does it

mean for us? For me, it's like really deeply important to understand what is the nature of the universe we're in? You know, what is it made out of? If you told me, the universe starts from these conditions and everything else follows from that like to have a universe you have to have space and time and this little bit of stuff and then everything else all the complexity the blueberries the kittens the lava the podcast all that comes from how that stuff is arranged and interacts and that's cool i want to know what is the most fundamental thing because that tells me something deep about the nature of the universe if it's this then the universe is that way in some deep way if it's that the universe is another way in some deep way and i just fundamentally want to know it doesn't

change how you drink your coffee. It doesn't change how you treat people. It doesn't change what investments you should make. But it changes what it means to be alive in this universe in a really important way. To me, it's very uncomfortable that we don't know the answer to the basic question of like, what is the fundamental building block of the universe we live in? It's like being born into a jail and not knowing who built it or what's on the outside. It's like I want to break out of this ignorance. I found myself personally wanting the answer. to be that everything is a field and is sort of connected in a way that feels like, I don't know, maybe sort of like kumbaya, sit around a fire sort of feeling. But I like that stuff. So anyway, I

guess my gut wants that to be the answer. But yes, I think it would be good for us to know the answer to this very fundamental question. And I suspect the answer is none of these and something even weirder that's going to be so difficult for us to understand. It's going to be a stretch to even explain in terms of our intuitive language of concepts. You know, we're going to have to use Kiwis and fields and particles and strings and all sorts of other stuff to try to wrap our minds around the way the universe actually works, which has no guarantee that it's even understandable to us. So people are going to be like, Democritus thought it was sour because it was like little knives and then Daniel and Kelly thought it was like strings and fields. What idiots. So, you know, who knows what they'll think in a hundred or so years. I hope they're laughing at us in a hundred years. That would be awesome.

Yeah. Progress is good. All right. Well, thanks everybody for taking this journey with us from the ancient miss. understanding of what matter was, to our modern misunderstanding of what matter is. And we hope to continue this journey and to slowly chisel away towards some actual solid understanding. Have a good week, everyone. Daniel and Kelly's Extraordinary Universe is produced by IHeart Radio. We would love to hear from you. We really would.

We want to know what questions you have about this extraordinary. We want to know your thoughts on recent shows, suggestions for future shows. If you contact us, we will get back to you. We really mean it. We answer every message. Email us at questions at danielandkelly.org. Or you can find us on social media. We have accounts on X, Instagram, Blue Sky, and on all of those platforms, you can find us at D&K Universe.

Don't be shy. Write to us. The U.S. Open is here. And on my podcast, Good Game with Sarah Spitz. I'm breaking down the players, the predictions, the pressure, and of course, the honey deuses, the signature cocktail of the U.S. Open. The U.S. Open has gotten to be a very wonderfully experiential sporting event. To hear this and more, listen to Good Game with Sarah Spain,

an IHeart Women's Sports production in partnership with Deep Blue Sports and Entertainment on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Brought to you by Novartis, founding partner of IHeart Women's Sports Network. Why are TSA rules so confusing? You got a hood of you. I'm take it off. I'm Manny. I'm Noah.

This is Devin. And we're best friends and journalists with a new podcast called No Such Thing, where we get to the bottom of questions like that. Why are you screaming? I can't expect what to do. Now, if the rule was the same, go off on me. I deserve it. You know, lock him up.

Listen to No Such Thing on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. No such thing. I'm Dr. Joy Hardin-Bradford, host of the Therapy for Black Girls podcast. I know how overwhelming it can feel if flying makes you anxious. In session 418 of the Therapy for Black Girls podcast, Dr. Angela Neal-Barnett and I discuss flight anxiety. What is not a norm is to allow it to prevent you from doing the things that you want to do, the things that you were meant to do.

Listen to Therapy for Black Girls on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Do we really need another podcast with a condescending finance brof trying to tell us how to spend our own money? No, thank you. Instead, check out Brown Ambition. Each week, I, your host, Mandy Money, gives you real talk, real advice with a heavy dose of I-feel uses, like on Fridays when I take your questions for the BAQA. Whether you're trying to invest for your future, navigate a toxic workplace, I got you. Listen to Brown Ambition on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. Hi, it's Honey German

And I'm back with season two of my podcast Grasias, come again. We got you when it comes to the latest in music and entertainment with interviews with some of your favorite Latin artists and celebrities. You didn't have to audition? No, I didn't audition. I haven't auditioned in like over 25 years. Oh, wow.

That's a real G-talk right there. Oh, yeah. We'll talk about all that's viral and trending with a little bit of cheesement and a whole lot of laughs. And of course, the great bevras you've come to expect. Listen to the new season of that. has come again on the iHeart radio app apple podcast or wherever you get your podcast this is an iHeart podcast