Exotic Matter

[Umbran]

It's possible, though, as a scientist, I have to make my best bet about what will actually tell us something interesting about the universe, whether directly or indirectly. My bet is not on models that at least appear mathematically and physically inconsistent before you add lots of epicycles, that's all.

You know, Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model have a number of problematic places that require renormalization techniques to help you deal with infinities. Those things *looked* mathematically and physically inconsistent until someone figured out to employ those techniques - meaning someone had to fiddle and play around with them and then go, "Hey, I can do *this*, and it all works out!". It turns out that in this case, you can make it work out... at the cost of having nonsensical materials. Okay, it turned out not to be terribly useful - but they didn't *know* what the result would be when they started, and knowing one way or the other is kinda important, no?

I, personally, figure that the realms of scientific inquiry ought to be pretty wide open. Do we really want to cast shade on some endeavors just because we don't expect they'll be fruitful? I mean, that's the same logic used by those who claim that "pure research," without direct commercial relevance, should be curtailed. And that would produce a hefty chilling effect, if we listened to it.

It is also important to remember that it isn't like this was some billion-dollar project to find out if a fringe-model is correct. It was like, Kip Thorne and a blackboard, paper, and pencils, right? Not a huge expenditure, or anything.

 

[freyar]

There are a couple of things that we expect do actually exist, that we have next to no chance of getting our hands on, that are also lumped in with "exotic matter". Neutronium - the stuff that neutron stars are made of, very likely exists (we have observed objects that have all the properties we'd expect a neutron star to have), but getting it? How? The stuff is down in a friggin' neutron star!

There's also "degenerate matter", which you find in the cores of large stars, or in their white dwarf remnants, in which the main source of pressure is not the temperature of particles that bang against each other, but the quantum mechanical Pauli Exclusion Principle, is also considered exotic, but is not really possible to get.

I want to clarify a little bit about the term "exotic matter." It's used in a lot of different ways. Just because neutronium is exotic in the English-language sense (you won't see any on earth), it's definitely not exotic in the same way as the stuff needed to make wormholes stable. Yes, it's incredibly dense, but it doesn't have weird properties like negative energy density. And we have very good evidence for the existence of neutron stars and therefore neutronium. Degenerate matter isn't actually that hard to find --- the electrons in a piece of metal at room temperature are pretty degenerate, for example. But the key thing I want to point out is that things like dark matter (at least usual theories of it), the Higgs boson, neutron stars, etc, aren't exotic in that they don't twist what's normally considered physically reasonable. Negative energy densities often go beyond that.

 

[freyar]

You know, Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model have a number of problematic places that require renormalization techniques to help you deal with infinities. Those things *looked* mathematically and physically inconsistent until someone figured out to employ those techniques - meaning someone had to fiddle and play around with them and then go, "Hey, I can do *this*, and it all works out!". It turns out that in this case, you can make it work out... at the cost of having nonsensical materials. Okay, it turned out not to be terribly useful - but they didn't *know* what the result would be when they started, and knowing one way or the other is kinda important, no?

I'm not sure precisely what you're saying, but renormalization techniques themselves are incredibly useful and have led to a really deep understanding of a number of subjects. But the other key difference between early quantum mechanics and what I'm talking about is (1) there was a clear need for something new in developing quantum mechanics and particle physics and (2) the development of quantum mechanics, etc, didn't start from the position of self-inconsistency and then crossing fingers that you can dial it back.

I, personally, figure that the realms of scientific inquiry ought to be pretty wide open. Do we really want to cast shade on some endeavors just because we don't expect they'll be fruitful? I mean, that's the same logic used by those who claim that "pure research," without direct commercial relevance, should be curtailed. And that would produce a hefty chilling effect, if we listened to it.

We've had some variation of this conversation before, and, you know, I think we're just coming at it from different perspectives. In a broad sense, I agree with you. It's just that scientists have to prioritize at the personal, institutional, national, and even international levels. Sometimes it just seems to me that there's too much of one direction vs another. Another issue is that I read (and referee) a lot of papers, and it's easy to find poor quality work that springs from the attitude of "well, I can just make things up without much regard to physical or mathematical principles." Let me put it this way: I don't have a problem with any specific direction of research as long as it could credibly be correct. There are unfortunately many instances of large swaths of literature that don't easily pass that test. That's all. And I don't think it should all be cut out, but I think sometimes the balance is sometimes affected more by sales pitches than scientific principles.

I might also note that there's been a fair amount of shade cast on subjects like particle dark matter research or string theory in public and even on EN World (not in a disrespectful way, just in terms of disagreements). Ironically, those types of research are based a lot more on growth of established principles.

It is also important to remember that it isn't like this was some billion-dollar project to find out if a fringe-model is correct. It was like, Kip Thorne and a blackboard, paper, and pencils, right? Not a huge expenditure, or anything.

Oh, sure, the Morris-Thorne wormhole stuff was cheap and kind of a lark. But, for example, the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope costs around $400 million and has a large goal to determine whether the universe's accelerated expansion is due to something like a cosmological constant or modified gravity. The thing is, most of the modified gravity theories are mathematically nonsensical or close to it. Now, the LSST is a great project with lots of other capabilities, so I like it a lot in general. But it's too bad that's pushed as a big sales pitch for it.

 

[freyar]

I suppose Ultron's machine that looked like a giant set of repulsor lift engines might instead have been infusing the land with exotic matter. Sure, we can go with that.

Especially since Agent Carter has introduces "Zero Matter", which is the best implementation of Marvel Universe "Darkforce" I could ever have hoped for....

A colleague of mine was (is?) the scientific advisor for Agent Carter and gave them a lot of ideas for Zero Matter based on real ideas in physics (where it might come from in extra dimensions, behavior of things like superfluids, etc). He put some reflections about it on his blog: Asymptotia (search for zero matter).

 

[Janx]

I expect it is as productive as any other form of play - which means the activity probably isn't *directly* productive, but has lots of good results that should not be discounted.

I'm sorry to hit upon a sore subject. I guess some physics people lean toward what I was saying, others don't.

Still, as what Umbran refuted my discomfort made sense, it sounds like playing "what if" games with placeholder concepts like Exotic Matter can sometimes lead to new ideas or sort of disproving ideas.

I'm inclined to recant my statement as badwrongfunism, and just let some set of scientists play their game of choice.

 

[Umbran]

I want to clarify a little bit about the term "exotic matter." It's used in a lot of different ways. Just because neutronium is exotic in the English-language sense (you won't see any on earth), it's definitely not exotic in the same way as the stuff needed to make wormholes stable. Yes, it's incredibly dense, but it doesn't have weird properties like negative energy density. And we have very good evidence for the existence of neutron stars and therefore neutronium. Degenerate matter isn't actually that hard to find --- the electrons in a piece of metal at room temperature are pretty degenerate, for example. But the key thing I want to point out is that things like dark matter (at least usual theories of it), the Higgs boson, neutron stars, etc, aren't exotic in that they don't twist what's normally considered physically reasonable. Negative energy densities often go beyond that.

Entirely agreed. That's why my first pass was "technical name for unobtanium", and I only added the things that don't raise eyebrows by physical laws and observation, but are just hard to get, on my second pass.

 

[Umbran]

A colleague of mine was (is?) the scientific advisor for Agent Carter and gave them a lot of ideas for Zero Matter based on real ideas in physics (where it might come from in extra dimensions, behavior of things like superfluids, etc). He put some reflections about it on his blog: Asymptotia (search for zero matter).

Okay, that's awesome. I want that job! So often they do *sooo* badly with such stuff.

 

[freyar]

Okay, that's awesome. I want that job! So often they do *sooo* badly with such stuff.

One of the best parts of my career has been getting to meet lots of cool people in science. When I met Clifford, he was one of the many theoretical physicists in LA, but I've seen him start doing lots of public outreach, science documentaries, and now science advising. Really neat. I've also met the science advisor for the Big Bang Theory, but that show has of course drifted a lot from science as a central theme (and they've always been willing to make up some mumbo-jumbo if they thought it fit better than the real science).

 

[Umbran]

I'm not sure precisely what you're saying, but renormalization techniques themselves are incredibly useful and have led to a really deep understanding of a number of subjects.

Yes. We say that now, in hindsight. It turned out renormalization techniques, and quantum mechanics, were incredibly useful. But, there was a time before these tools were used, when Einstein was still saying that God doesn't play dice with the Universe. There was a time when QM was considered wacky, and many of the brightest felt it wouldn't go anywhere. My pofessors noted that there had been calls of the form, "Look at those infinities! It's clearly non-physical! Don't worry about it!" Aren't you glad they didn't listen to the naysayers?

So, I'm not a big fan of pre-judging. The results will speak for themselves, eventually.

I might also note that there's been a fair amount of shade cast on subjects like particle dark matter research or string theory in public and even on EN World (not in a disrespectful way, just in terms of disagreements). Ironically, those types of research are based a lot more on growth of established principles.

I've cast shade on string theory, in the form of "been at it for decades, still not much in terms of testable predictions," form*. I have never said they shouldn't have bothered ever trying the theories out, though - I only gripe that after so long, perhaps we should have some of these brilliant people looking down other avenues. I believe I am officially without preference on Dark Matter models, other than noting that certain forms seem to have been largely ruled out by observations. Again, I don't believe I've ever said folks shouldn't have investigated the various models.





*Modern Quantum Mechanics can be seen to have gotten its start in 1925. Thirty five years later, in 1960, we had atomic bombs, solid state electronics, conventional superconductivity models, and nuclear power plants. The "first superstring revolution" was around 1980. And today? Not much that we can even test to tell if we've got the right general direction. Just sayin'. Yes, yes, I know a great deal about the energy levels we are dealing with, and how difficult the math and everything else about it is. Even knowing that, the point still remains in my mind.

 

[Janx]

Yes. We say that now, in hindsight. It turned out renormalization techniques, and quantum mechanics, were incredibly useful. But, there was a time before these tools were used, when Einstein was still saying that God doesn't play dice with the Universe. There was a time when QM was considered wacky, and many of the brightest felt it wouldn't go anywhere. My pofessors noted that there had been calls of the form, "Look at those infinities! It's clearly non-physical! Don't worry about it!" Aren't you glad they didn't listen to the naysayers?

So, I'm not a big fan of pre-judging. The results will speak for themselves, eventually.



I've cast shade on string theory, in the form of "been at it for decades, still not much in terms of testable predictions," form*. I have never said they shouldn't have bothered ever trying the theories out, though - I only gripe that after so long, perhaps we should have some of these brilliant people looking down other avenues. I believe I am officially without preference on Dark Matter models, other than noting that certain forms seem to have been largely ruled out by observations. Again, I don't believe I've ever said folks shouldn't have investigated the various models.





*Modern Quantum Mechanics can be seen to have gotten its start in 1925. Thirty five years later, in 1960, we had atomic bombs, solid state electronics, conventional superconductivity models, and nuclear power plants. The "first superstring revolution" was around 1980. And today? Not much that we can even test to tell if we've got the right general direction. Just sayin'. Yes, yes, I know a great deal about the energy levels we are dealing with, and how difficult the math and everything else about it is. Even knowing that, the point still remains in my mind.

I've seen the Einstein quote about dice and god. Had he recanted his statement later in life?

Back to QM, in the past, you've said QM helped us do modern electronics. Are you basically saying String Theory hasn't yielded anything (not just stuff, but tests that indicate the String ideas have merit)?