Month: June 2018

There’s a contradiction between classical and quantum theories.

One of the outstanding discoveries made in the early part of the last century was that of the quantum behaviour of the physical world. At very short distances, such as the size of an atom and smaller, the world behaves very differently to the “classical” world we are used to.

Typical of the quantum world is so-called wave-particle duality: particles such as electrons behave sometimes as if they are point particles with a definite position, and sometimes as if they are spread out like waves.

This strange behaviour is not just of theoretical interest, since it is underpins much of our modern technology. It is fundamental to the behaviour of semiconductors in all our electronic devices, the behaviour of nano-materials, and the current rise of quantum computing.

Quantum theory is fundamental. It must govern not just the very small but also the classical realm. That means physicists and mathematicians have had to develop methods not just for understanding new quantum phenomena, but also for replacing classical theories by their quantum analogues.

This is the process of [quantization.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_(physics) When we have a finite number of degrees of freedom, such as for a finite collection of particles, although the quantum behaviour is often counter-intuitive, we have a well-developed mathematical machinery to handle this quantization called quantum mechanics.

This is well understood physically and mathematically. But when we move to study the electric and magnetic fields where we have an infinite number of degrees of freedom, the situation is much more complicated. With the development of so-called quantum field theory, a quantum theory for fields, physics has made progress that mathematically we do not completely understand.

What’s the problem?

Many field theories fall into a class called gauge field theories, where a particular collection of symmetries, called the gauge group, acts on the fields and particles. In the case that these symmetries all commute, so-called abelian gauge theories, we have a reasonable understanding of the quantization.

This includes the case of the electromagnetic field, quantum electrodynamics, for which the theory makes impressively accurate predictions.

The first example of a non-abelian theory that arose historically is the theory of the electro-weak interaction, which requires a mechanism to make the predicted particles massive as we observe them in nature. This involves the so-called Higgs boson, which is currently being searched for with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN.

The notable feature of this theory for our present discussion is that the Higgs mechanism is classical and carries over to the quantum theory under the quantization process.

The case of interest in the Millennium Problem “Yang-Mills theory and Mass-Gap” is Yang-Mills gauge theory, a non-abelian theory which we expect to describe quarks and the strong force that binds the nucleus and powers the sun. Here we encounter a contradiction between the classical and quantum theories.

The classical theory predicts massless particles and long-range forces. The quantum theory has to match the real world with short-range forces and massive particles. Physicists expect various mathematical properties such as the “mass gap” and “asymptotic freedom” to explain the non-existence of massless particles in observations of the strong interactions.

As these properties are not visible in the classical theory and arise only in the quantum theory, understanding them means we need a rigorous approach to “quantum Yang-Mills theory”. Currently we do not have the mathematics to do this, although various approximations and simplifications can be done which suggest the quantum theory has the required properties.

The Millennium Problem seeks to establish by rigorous mathematics the existence of the “mass gap” – that is, the non-existence of massless particles in Yang-Mills theory. The solution of the problem would involve an approach to quantum field theory in four dimensions that is sophisticated enough to explain at least this feature of quantum non-abelian Yang-Mills gauge theory.

Doing the maths

Clearly this is of interest to physicists, but why is it of importance to mathematicians? It has become apparent in the last few decades that the tools that physicists have developed for doing quantum field theory, in particular path integrals, make precise predictions about geometry and topology, particularly in low dimensions.

But we don’t know mathematically what a path integral is, except in very simple cases. It is as if we are in a pre-Newtonian world – certain calculations can be done with certain tricks but Newton hasn’t developed calculus for us yet.

Analogously, there are calculations in geometry and topology that can be done non-rigorously using methods developed by physicists in quantum field theory which give the right answers. This suggests that there is a set of powerful techniques waiting to be discovered.

A solution to this Millennium Problem would shed light on what these new techniques are.

For more such insights, log into www.international-maths-challenge.com.

*Credit for article given to Michael Murray*

Using a new mathematical methodology, researchers at MIT have created a scientifically rigorous analogy that shows the similarities between the physical structure of spider silk and the sonic structure of a melody, proving that the structure of each relates to its function in an equivalent way.

The step-by-step comparison begins with the primary building blocks of each item — an amino acid and a sound wave — and moves up to the level of a beta sheet nanocomposite (the secondary structure of a protein consisting of repeated hierarchical patterns) and a musical riff (a repeated pattern of notes or chords). The study explains that structural patterns are directly related to the functional properties of lightweight strength in the spider silk and, in the riff, sonic tension that creates an emotional response in the listener.

While likening spider silk to musical composition may appear to be more novelty than breakthrough, the methodology behind it represents a new approach to comparing research findings from disparate scientific fields. Such analogies could help engineers develop materials that make use of the repeating patterns of simple building blocks found in many biological materials that, like spider silk, are lightweight yet extremely failure-resistant. The work also suggests that engineers may be able to gain new insights into biological systems through the study of the structure-function relationships found in music and other art forms.

The MIT researchers — David Spivak, a postdoc in the Department of Mathematics, Associate Professor Markus Buehler of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE) and CEE graduate student Tristan Giesa — published their findings in the December issue of BioNanoScience.

They created the analogy using ontology logs, or “ologs,” a concept introduced about a year ago by Spivak, who specializes in a branch of mathematics called category theory. Ologs provide an abstract means for categorizing the general properties of a system — be it a material, mathematical concept or phenomenon — and showing inherent relationships between function and structure.

To build the ologs, the researchers used information from Buehler’s previous studies of the nanostructure of spider silk and other biological materials.

“There is mounting evidence that similar patterns of material features at the nanoscale, such as clusters of hydrogen bonds or hierarchical structures, govern the behaviour of materials in the natural environment, yet we couldn’t mathematically show the analogy between different materials,” Buehler says. “The olog lets us compile information about how materials function in a mathematically rigorous way and identify those patterns that are universal to a very broad class of materials. Its potential for engineering the built environment — in the design of new materials, structures or infrastructure — is immense.”

“This work is very exciting because it brings forth an approach founded on category theory to bridge music (and potentially other aspects of the fine arts) to a new field of materiomics,” says Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering Joyce Wong of Boston University, a biomaterials scientist and engineer, as well as a musician. “This approach is particularly appropriate for the hierarchical design of proteins, as they show in the silk example. What is particularly exciting is the opportunity to reveal new relationships between seemingly disparate fields with the aim of improving materials engineering and design.”

At first glance, an olog may look deceptively simple, much like a corporate organizational chart that shows reporting relationships using directional arrows. But ologs demand scientific rigor to break a system down into its most basic structural building blocks, define the functional properties of the building blocks with respect to one another, show how function emerges through the building blocks’ interactions, and do this in a self-consistent manner. With this structure, two or more systems can be formally compared.

“The fact that a spider’s thread is robust enough to avoid catastrophic failure even when a defect is present can be explained by the very distinct material makeup of spider-silk fibers,” Giesa says. “It’s exciting to see that music theoreticians observed the same phenomenon in their field, probably without any knowledge of the concept of damage tolerance in materials. Deleting single chords from a harmonic sequence often has only a minor effect on the harmonic quality of the whole sequence.”

“The seemingly incredible gap between spider silk and music is no wider than the gap between the two disparate mathematical fields of geometry — think of triangles and spheres — and algebra, which uses variables and equations,” Spivak says. “Yet category theory’s first success, in the 1940s, was to express a rigorous mathematical analogy between these two domains and use it to prove new theorems about complex geometric shapes by importing existing theorems from algebra. It remains to be seen whether our olog will yield such striking results; however, the foundation for such an inquiry is now in place.”

For more such insights, log into our website https://international-maths-challenge.com

Credit of the article given to Denise Brehm, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Our best efforts to gauge threats may be counter-productive.

Assessing risk is something everyone must do every day. Yet few are very good at it, and there are significant consequences of the public’s collective inability to accurately assess risk.

As a first and very important example, most people presume, as an indisputable fact, that the past century has been the most violent in all history — two devastating world wars, the Holocaust, the Rawanda massacre, the September 11 attacks and more — and that we live in a highly dangerous time today.

And yet, as Canadian psychologist (now at Harvard) Steven Pinker has exhaustively documented in his new book The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, the opposite is closer to the truth, particularly when normalised by population.

As Pinker himself puts it:

“Believe it or not — and I know most people do not — violence has been in decline over long stretches of time, and we may be living in the most peaceful time in our species’ existence. The decline of violence, to be sure, has not been steady; it has not brought violence down to zero (to put it mildly); and it is not guaranteed to continue.

“But I hope to convince you that it’s a persistent historical development, visible on scales from millennia to years, from the waging of wars and perpetration of genocides to the spanking of children and the treatment of animals.”

How could the public perception be so wrong? The news media is partly to blame — good news doesn’t sell much advertising space. But the problem might go even deeper: we may be psychologically disposed to miscalculate risk, perhaps as an evolutionary response to danger.

One well-known problem is the “conjunction fallacy” — the common predilection to assign greater probability to a more specialised risk.

One indication of our inability to objectively assess risk is the fanatical and often counter-productive measures taken by parents nowadays to protect children. Some 42 years years ago, 67% of American children walked or biked to school, but today only 10% do, in part stemming from a handful of highly publicised abduction incidents.

Yet the number of cases of real child abduction by strangers (as opposed to, say, a divorced parent) has dwindled from 200-300 per year in the 1990s to only about 100 per year in the US today.

Even if one assumes all of these children are harmed (which is not true), this is still only about 1/20 the risk of drowning and 1/40 of the risk of a fatal car accident.

Such considerations many not diminish the tragedy of an individual loss, but they do raise questions of priority in prevention. Governments worldwide often agonise over marginal levels of additives in certain products (agar in apples in the 1980s and asbestos insulation in well-protected ceilings), while refusing to spend money or legislate for clear social good (smoking in the developing world, gun control, infectious disease control, needle exchange programs and working conditions in coal mines).

One completely absurd example is the recent surge of opposition in the U.S. (supposedly on health concerns) to “smart meters,” which once an hour send usage statistics to the local electric or natural gas utility.

The microwave exposure for these meters, even if you are standing just two feet from a smart meter when it broadcasts its data, is 550 times less than standing in front of an active microwave oven, up to 4,600 times less than holding a walkie-talkie at your ear, and up to 1,100 times less than holding an active cell phone at your ear.

It is even less than sitting in a WiFi cyber cafe using a laptop computer.

A much more serious example is the ongoing hysteria, especially in the UK and the US, over childhood vaccinations. Back in 1998, a study was published in the British medical journal Lancet claiming that vaccination shots with a certain mercury compound may be linked to autism, but other studies showed no such link.

In the meantime, many jumped on the anti-vaccination bandwagon, and several childhood diseases began to reappear, including measles in England and Wales, and whooping cough in California. We should note the rate of autism is probably increasing.

Finally, in January 2011, Lancet formally acknowledged that the original study was not only bad science (which had been recognised for years), but further an “elaborate fraud”.

Yet nearly one year later, opposition to vaccination remains strong, and irresponsible politicians such as would-be-US-President Michele Bachmann cynically (or ignorantly?) milk it.

A related example is the worldwide reaction to the Fukushima reactor accident. This was truly a horrible incident, and we do not wish to detract from death and environmental devastation that occurred. But we question decisions such as that quickly made by Germany to discontinue and dismantle its nuclear program.

Was this decision made after a sober calculation of relative risk, or simply from populist political pressure? We note this decision inevitably will mean more consumption of fossil fuels, as well as the importation of electricity from France, which is 80% nuclear.

Is this a step forward, or a step backward? We also note that concern about global warming is, if anything, more acute than ever in light of accelerating carbon consumption.

This kind of over-reaction — to which many of us are prey — is exacerbated by cynical and exploitive individuals, such as Bill and Michelle Deagle and Jeff Rense, who profit from such fears by peddling bogus medical products, speaking at conspiracy conventions for hefty fees, and charging for elite information.

This is just one instance of a large, growing and dangerous co-evolution of creationist, climate-denial and other anti-science movements.

How do we protect against such misinformation and misperceptions? The complete answers are complex but several things are clear.

First of all, science education must be augmented to address the assessment of risk — this should be a standard part of high school mathematics, as should be more attention to the information needed to make informed assessment.

Second, the press needs to be significantly more vigilant in critically commenting on dubious claims of public risk by citing literature, consulting real experts, and so on. Ideally, we should anticipate scientifically trained and certified scientific journalists.

Third, mathematicians and scientists themselves need to recognise their responsibility to help the public understand risk. Failure to do so, well, poses a serious risk to society.

For more such insights, log into www.international-maths-challenge.com.

*Credit for article given to Jonathan Borwein (Jon)*

Basketball fans everywhere recognize the following scenario: Their favourite player scores a three-point shot. A short time later he regains control of the ball. But does the fact that he scored the last time make him more likely to try another three-pointer? Does it change the probability that he will score again?

New research by Dr. Yonatan Loewenstein and graduate student Tal Neiman at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem shatters the myth that a player who scores one or more three-pointers improves his odds of scoring another.

Dr. Loewenstein is at the Edmond and Lily Safra Center for Brain Sciences and the Department of Neurobiology at the Hebrew University.

Appearing in the latest issue of the journal Nature Communications, the report raises doubts about the ability of athletes in particular, and people in general, to predict future success based on past performance.

Loewenstein and Neiman examined more than 200,000 attempted shots from 291 leading players in the National Basketball Association (NBA) in the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 regular seasons, and more than 15,000 attempted shots by 41 leading players in the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) during the 2008 and 2009 regular seasons.

The researchers studied how scores or misses affected a player’s behaviour later in the game, and found that after a successful three-pointer, players were significantly more likely to attempt another three-pointer.

In other words, a successful three point shot provided players with positive reinforcement to attempt additional three point shots later in the game.

Surprisingly, the researchers discovered the exact opposite of what players and fans tend to believe: players who scored a three-pointer and then attempted another three-pointer were more likely to miss the follow-up shot.

On the other hand, players who missed a previous three-pointer were more likely to score with their next attempt.

According to Dr. Loewenstein, “The study shows that despite many years of intense training, even the best basketball players over-generalize from their most recent actions and their outcomes. They assume that even one shot is indicative of future performance, while not taking into account that the situation in which they previously scored is likely to be different than the current one.”

The behaviour of basketball players shows the limitations of learning from reinforcement, especially in a complex environment such as a basketball game.

“Learning from reinforcement may not improve performance, and may even damage it, if it is not based on an accurate model of the world,” explains Dr. Loewenstein. “This affects everyone’s behaviour: brokers make investments according to past market performance and commanders make military moves based on the results of past battles. Awareness of the limitations of this kind of learning can help them improve their decision-making processes — as well as those of basketball players.”

For more such insights, log into our website https://international-maths-challenge.com

Credit of the article given to Hebrew University of Jerusalem