Discoveries in physics in the first quarter of the 21st Century.

The Best Physics of the Century (So Far)

Our century is now a quarter complete, from Y2K to today (2000 – 2025).  What have been the greatest discoveries in Physics so far? And what do they portend for the rest of the century?

Every century of physics tends to have its own character:

The 1600’s were the time of Galileo, Descartes, Huygens, Leibniz and Newton who created the science of dynamics out of nothing. 

The 1700’s were the time of du Chatelet, Maupertuis, Euler, Lagrange, and D’Alembert who constructed mathematical physics on the foundation of the calculus. 

The 1800’s were the time of Young, Fresnel, Hamilton, Maxwell, Boltzmann, and Lord Kelvin who completed the program of classical physics. 

The 1900’s were the time of Einstein and Bohr who invented relativistic and quantum physics and launched the grand program of unified forces.

Now we come to the 2000’s. What will this century be known for?

Two topics physicists have at the top of their mind today is Quantum and AI (and there is even quantum AI).  But AI is merely a tool (though an important one that is radically changing how physics is done), and quantum is a catch-all (almost everything is quantum at its core).

So, what are the greatest breakthroughs of the 21st Century so far?  And what do they portend for the eventual “character” of 21st-Century physics when seen in the rear-view mirror of history by the year 2100?

Single-photon Quantum Information (2001)

The century started on July 24, 2000, when a landmark paper was received by Nature magazine submitted by Emanuel Knill and Raymond Laflamme at Los Alamos National Lab in the United States with Gerald Milburn from the University of Queensland, Australia (collectively known as KLM). This little-heralded paper proposed a radical new idea in quantum information, an idea that would have profound effects on the development of quantum science for the coming quarter-century.

The idea was simply that quantum logic could be performed with single photons and linear optics [1]. Up to that point, most research on quantum optical computing was trying to get photons to interact with each other (which they really don’t like to do) in nonlinear media like crystals or trapped atoms. What KLM showed was that quantum information could be manipulated in general ways without interactions. The paper proposed a technique that could perform quantum logic in a universal way using only linear optical elements like single-photon sources, beam splitters, phase shifters, and single-photon detectors, introducing the novel idea of “measurement-based” quantum computing.

Recovery from Z Linear Optical Quantum Computing
Fig. 0. LOQC circuitry from the KLM paper.

In the quarter-century since the publication of the KLM paper, LOQC has steadily progressed via the development of single-photon sources and detectors. Today, numerous start-ups are pursuing LOQC, notably Xanadu in Toronto, Canada, and PsiQuantum in Palo Alto, USA and Brisbane, Australia. By 2100, this century will likely be viewed as the time when applications of quantum information reached their maturity.  Where the 20th century was a century of discovery of quantum phenomena, the 21st will be the century when it was reduced to practice.

Solar Neutrino Oscillation (2001)

The sun is fueled by the fusion of hydrogen that generates electron neutrinos. The reaction looks like

where p is a proton (hydrogen), 2H is deuterium (a hydrogen nucleus with an extra neutron), e+ is a positron (the anti-matter form of an electron) and ν e is an electron neutrino. This reaction accounts for 99% of the neutrinos generated by the Sun, calculated by the theoretical astrophysicist John Bahcall of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University. Already by the late 1960’s it was suspected that too few of the neutrinos were being detected compared to predictions, so he teamed with Raymond Davis of Brookhaven National Lab to build an experiment to detect the flux of solar neutrinos. To shield the detector from cosmic rays, the experiment was placed at the 4850 level of the Homestake Gold Mine in Lead, South Dakota and operated from 1970 to 1994. The deficit of solar neutrinos was confirmed, and it was huge: Fully two-thirds of expected solar neutrinos were missing!

The simplest solution to the missing solar neutrinos was that they just weren’t there because, on their way to Earth from the Sun, they had converted to something else that was not detectedable. This conversion from one particle to another is possible if neutrinos have a non-zero (but extremely small) mass. If so, then an electron neutrino can convert to a muon neutrino, and if the distance is far enough, they can convert back. In other words, the nature of the neutrino particle is that its identity oscillates. This is called the solar neutrino oscillation, and by the time the neutrinos have arrived at Earth, two-thirds of them have converted to muon neutrinos.

There was a general reluctance to accept neutrino oscillations because it represented a departure from the Standard Model of particle physics and introduced uncomfortably small masses for neutrinos that otherwise behave like massless particles. Two experiments put these qualms to rest: the Super-Kamiokanda expeeriment in Japan and the Sudbury Neutrino Oscillation experiment in Canada. By the early years of the century, neutrino oscillations had been confirmed.

Neutrino oscillations
Fig. 1. Electron neutrinos (black) convert to muon (blue) and tau (red) neutrinos as a function of distance relative to their energy. The value of L/E for solar neutrinos and the Earth is much larger than plotted here, so the effects average out to a net deficit of electron neutrinos. From Ref.

By 2100, the mystery of the ultra-small neutrino masses will likely have been solved.  If the answer falls within the Standard Model, then this may be the crowning achievement that “completes” the standard model.  If the answer falls outside the Standard Model, then this may be the beginning of a new chapter in high-energy physics.

WMAP and Planck (2003)

The Big Bang may have occurred 13.7 billion years ago, but that Bang echoes to this day across the Universe. At its inception, the reverberations were incredibly hot, but they have cooled now to a mere 3 degrees Kelvin. In 1987, Paul Richards and Andrew Lange at the University of California at Berkeley, recorded the peak of the Planck black body spectrum during a sounding rocket flight that carried a far-infrared spectrometer to the edge of space. (The dichroic bandpass filters in their spectrometer were the first far-infrared metamaterials. I designed and built them as a young grad student at Berkeley! [2]) This experiment was followed by the COBE satellite that measured the presence of minuscule fluctuations in the temperature, representing the original heterogeneity of the universe just after the Big Bang.

COBE flew for a year, followed in 1998 by the BOOMerAng experiment, led by Andrew Lange, that was suspended from a high-altitude balloon circling the South Pole for ten days. This experiment discovered the literal echoes of the Big Bang, acoustic oscillations, in other words, the “sound” of the Bang. It also established that the universe is gravitationally “flat”, which is a direct consequence of cosmic inflation. Once again, these findings were followed by a satellite experiment, the WMAP mission in 2003, that mapped these oscillations over the entire sky. Even finer resolution was obtained by the Planck mission in 2013, measuring higher harmonics of the sound oscillations. These oscillations in the early universe helped seed regions of slightly higher density that condensed into galaxies, leading to the large-scale structure of the universe that we see today.

Anisotropy of the cosmic background radiation
Fig. 2. Successively higher resolution views of the echos of the Big Bang from COBE (1992) to WMAP (2003) to Planck (2013). From Ref.

The 21st Century will likely be known as the time when the physics of the early universe was finally pinned down, and maybe even of what can before. The answers may tell us if there are parallel universes in a much larger metaverse.

Exoplanets (2009)

The Earth is not alone in the Universe. It is not even alone in our little neighborhood of the Milky Way. Within 50 light years it is estimated that there are about 1000 Earth-sized planets in the habitable zone of their respective stars. Why is 50 light years significant? It is because, within this century, the technology to explore those planets is likely to be developed. With the right designs, an unmanned probe could reach 50 light years from Earth within a century, and the time to call back home is only 50 years. So if a probe is launched in the year 2100, we could be receiving transmissions from the new planet by the year 2250.

This estimate of 1000 New Earths is the result of a quiet revolution in planetary science that has been unfolding over the past quarter century. The very first exoplanet was confirmed in 1995 by Michel Mayor and Didier Queloz. Today, as of the writing of this blog, there are 6,278 confirmed exoplanets. Most of these were disovered by the Kepler satellite that was launched in 2009.

Kepler exoplanet discoveries
Fig. 3. An artists rendition of several of the Earth-sized planets discovered by the Kepler satellite. From Ref.

By 2100, we will know where all the exoplanets are that are within 50 light years of Earth, and we will know which ones are potential inhabitable.  It may even happen that signs of life on one of these planets will have been discovered.  If so, then it is hard to imagine humankind NOT launching probes to visit those planets.  If the right propulsion technology is developed, then those probes could be signaling back information from those planets as early as the year 2250…if anyone is still here to listen.

The Higgs (2012)

The crowning achievement of high-energy physics may also have been the last nail in the coffin. Throughout the second half of the 20th century, high-energy physics took the lion’s share of money and attention showered on physics. Beginning in the aftermath of the Manhattan Project, the search for the fundamental constituents of our universe at first found more and more particles, creating a “zoo” that resisted easy classification, until quarks were proposed that simplified the whole thing down into what is now called the Standard Model of Physics.

But one piece of the puzzle was still missing–the explanation of why particles have the masses they do. This missing piece was supplied by the theoretical physicist Peter Higgs in 1964 who proposed that point-like massless particles interacted with a “field” that permeated space. The interaction energy was equivalent to mass through Einstein’s famous E = mc2, and the quantization of the field predicted the existence of a “Higgs Boson”. The search for the “Higgs”, as it is called for short, became the Holy Grail of Physics at the end of the last century.

Higgs production, decay and pair processes as Feynman diagrams
Fig. 4. Feynman diagrams that involve the generation of Higgs particles.

The discovery of the Higgs boson was announced on the 4th of July in 2012 [3]. It capped 80 years of progress in high-energy particle physics since the discovery of the positron in 1932. But it may also be the last. Since 2012, over the past 14 years, there have been no new “major” discoveries at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Most high-energy talks since then have been about speculative experiments seeking deviations from the Standard Model, but so far there is nothing new.

In the year 2100, looking back, the era of high-energy physics may be relegated to the 20th century, with the Higgs just a finishing touch that tipped over into the new millennium … Or sometime in the next 75 years there will be a discovery that goes beyond standard physics and opens a new chapter in the field. We will have to wait to see.

Gravitational Waves (2015)

Where were you on Nov. 11, 2015 at 10:30 am? Can you remember? I can! I was in a conference room in the Physics Building on the Purdue University Campus waiting with a small crowd of physicists for a news conference to begin. Everyone knew it would be something big. It was. They announced the first detection of a gravitational wave by the LIGO detector (the Laser Interferometric Gravitational Wave Observatory). In a way, it was anti-climactic because we all knew that LIGO would eventually see one. But it was also immensely dramatic, because it was the most sensitive measurement ever made by mankind. The displacement of the mirrors in the interferometer caused by the passing gravitational wave was a tiny fraction of a radius of a proton, yet the signal was as clear as a bell. It came from the merger of two 30 solar-mass black holes in a galaxy far, far away.

First detection of gravitational waves by LIGO
Fig. 5. The two LIGO recordings (at Hanfored and at Livingston) of the first detected gravitaitonal wave. From Ref.

By the year 2100, looking back, multi-messenger astronomy will have been a key part of the physics of the 21st century. Multi-messenger astronomy is when an astronomical event is detected across many detection modes, possibly including light, infrared, ultraviolet, x-ray, neutrino and gravitational wave detection. The field is just beginning and has a long way to go to integrate all these different ways of seeing into a complete picture of what happens out in the universe.

Topological physics (2016)

Of all the topics of this blog, this one is perhaps the most abstract. When we think of geometry, it is natural to think in terms of the symmetries that objects have. The last century was the pinnacle of geometric physics, where Einstein showed that gravity is a geometric property of warped space, where group theory classified all the ways that objects can be constructed and behave, and symmetry breaking was invoked to explain the hierarchy of physical forces.

The new century will be the time of topological physics, where symmetries of matter may not even matter, but the way that properties of matter are connected does. By “property of matter” I mean like the electronic states of a solid state material where the states are excluded from portions of state space, creating topology in abstract spaces. Such topological properties govern how freely currents can flow on surfaces but not in the bulk, or vice versa. In quantum systems, topological properties can protect quantum information from decoherence, which is the bane of most real-world implementations of quantum computers. For instance, by “braiding anyons” it is possible to create qubits that resist dephasing.

Braided anyons at Purdue
Fig. 6. Evidence for the braiding of anyons in the solid state. From Ref.

The importance of topology in physics was recognized with the 2016 Nobel Prize to David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane, and J. Michael Kosterlitz for “Theoretical discoveries of topological phase transitions and topological phases of matter.”

Images of Black Holes (2019)

Why hasn’t this gotten a Nobel Prize yet? The imaging of black holes is a tour de force, requiring a telescope with the diameter of a planet, and requiring the collaboration of scientists from across that planet to make it all work.

The physics is straightforward. Everyone knows that bigger telescopes have better resolution, so the logical limit is a telescope the size of the Earth. This is accomplished by using interferometric detection, with data from widely spread millimeter-wave telescopes synchronized by an atomic clock in a network of telescopes known as the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT). The results are constructed numerically, as shown below.

Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) images of a black hole

Fig. 7. The EHT images (left) compared to the model (middle) and the blurred model (right) of the black hole in the M87 galaxy. From Ref.

The next logical step for this kind of imaging is a telescope array that is bigger than the Earth … much bigger! This could be accomplished with an array of Lagrange-point satellites, improving the resolution of the images. By the end of this century, we may be imaging the black holes in all the near-by galaxies.

More to Come?

What are the greatest outstanding problems of physics that may yet yield to solutions within this century? It is impossible to say for certain without a crystal ball, but there are some that are likely to be resolved in the next 75 years:

Dark Matter: This is the 500 pound gorilla in the room. If most of the tangible universe is made of this stuff, then we had better get around to detecting it!

Dark Energy: This is the other 500 pound gorilla in the room. If most of the intangible universe is made of this stuff, then we had better get a good understanding of it.

Quantum Gravity: Of the four forces of physics (gravity, electro-magnetic, weak nuclear and strong nuclear) gravity stands apart in several ways, one of which is that there is no quantum theory for it. We have 75 years to fix this if it is to be a crowning achievement of 21st-Century physics.

The Evolution of Life: I didn’t include any biophysics in my list of the best physics of the century mainly because I cannot point to a single revolutionary breakthrough of physics in this area. There has been a lot of good progress on the microphysics of biological systems, but nothing like discovering a Higgs boson. This could change if the origins of life turn out to be physics-based rather than just some chemistry.

The Evolution of Intelligence: I think physics has more to say on the evolution of intelligence than on the evolution of life. Intelligence is the quintessential complex system, and the methods of theoretical physics may yet provide a clear answer to the question of “What is Intelligence?”.

The Early Universe: This is just starting now with the James Webb Telescope peering into the dark depths of history–nearly to the Big Bang itself.

Multiple Dimensions: String theory likes to live in 11-dimensional space, so what other parts of our physical universe live there too? Dark Matter? Dark Energy? Do all the extra dimensions need to be compact?

The Arrow of Time: The physics of time is possibly the greatest unsolved problem in physics. Why does it only go one way?

Singularity Physics: What happens at the center of a Black Hole? Do wormholes provide hyperspace bypasses? These questions may yet get answers from theoretical physics though likely not from the laboratory unless it is from an AMO analog.

References

[1] E. Knill, R. Laflamme and G. J. Milburn, A Scheme for Efficient Quantum Computation with Linear Optics, Nature 409 (6816), 46–52 (2001).

[2] D. NOLTE, A. LANGE and P. RICHARDS, Far-Infrared Dichroic Bandpass-Filters, Applied Optics 24 (10), 1541–1545 (1985).

[3] CERN. (2012, July 4). CERN experiments observe particle consistent with long-sought Higgs boson [Press release]. https://home.cern/news/press-release/cern/cern-experiments-observe-particle-consistent-long-sought-higgs-boson; ATLAS Collaboration. (2012). Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Physics Letters B, 716(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020 Cited by: 13000+; CMS Collaboration. (2012). Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC. Physics Letters B, 716(1), 30–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021

A Brief History of Nothing: The Physics of the Vacuum from Atomism to Higgs

It may be hard to get excited about nothing … unless nothing is the whole ball game. 

The only way we can really know what is, is by knowing what isn’t.  Nothing is the backdrop against which we measure something.  Experimentalists spend almost as much time doing control experiments, where nothing happens (or nothing is supposed to happen) as they spend measuring a phenomenon itself, the something.

Even the universe, full of so much something, came out of nothing during the Big Bang.  And today the energy density of nothing, so-called Dark Energy, is blowing our universe apart, propelling it ever faster to a bitter cold end.

So here is a brief history of nothing, tracing how we have understood what it is, where it came from, and where is it today.

With sturdy shoulders, space stands opposing all its weight to nothingness. Where space is, there is being.

Friedrich Nietzsche

40,000 BCE – Cosmic Origins

This is a human history, about how we homo sapiens try to understand the natural world around us, so the first step on a history of nothing is the Big Bang of human consciousness that occurred sometime between 100,000 – 40,000 years ago.  Some sort of collective phase transition happened in our thought process when we seem to have become aware of our own existence within the natural world.  This time frame coincides with the beginning of representational art and ritual burial.  This is also likely the time when human language skills reached their modern form, and when logical arguments–stories–first were told to explain our existence and origins. 

Roughly two origin stories emerged from this time.  One of these assumes that what is has always been, either continuously or cyclically.  Buddhism and Hinduism are part of this tradition as are many of the origin philosophies of Indigenous North Americans.  Another assumes that there was a beginning when everything came out of nothing.  Abrahamic faiths (Let there be light!) subscribe to this creatio ex nihilo.  What came before creation?  Nothing!

500 BCE – Leucippus and Democritus Atomism

The Greek philosopher Leucippus and his student Democritus, living around 500 BCE, were the first to lay out the atomic theory in which the elements of substance were indivisible atoms of matter, and between the atoms of matter was void.  The different materials around us were created by the different ways that these atoms collide and cluster together.  Plato later adhered to this theory, developing ideas along these lines in his Timeaus.

300 BCEAristotle Vacuum

Aristotle is famous for arguing, in his Physics Book IV, Section 8, that nature abhors a vacuum (horror vacui) because any void would be immediately filled by the imposing matter surrounding it.  He also argued more philosophically that nothing, by definition, cannot exist.

1644 – Rene Descartes Vortex Theory

Fast forward a millennia and a half, and theories of existence were finally achieving a level of sophistication that can be called “scientific”.  Rene Descartes followed Aristotle’s views of the vacuum, but he extended it to the vacuum of space, filling it with an incompressible fluid in his Principles of Philosophy (1644).  Just like water, laminar motion can only occur by shear, leading to vortices.  Descartes was a better philosopher than mathematician, so it took Christian Huygens to apply mathematics to vortex motion to “explain” the gravitational effects of the solar system.

Rene Descartes, Vortex Theory, 1644. Image Credit

1654 – Otto von Guericke Vacuum Pump

Otto von Guericke is one of those hidden gems of the history of science, a person who almost no-one remembers today, but who was far in advance of his own day.  He was a powerful politician, holding the position of Burgomeister of the city of Magdeburg for more than 30 years, helping to rebuild it after it was sacked during the Thirty Years War.  He was also a diplomat, playing a key role in the reorientation of power within the Holy Roman Empire.  How he had free time is anyone’s guess, but he used it to pursue scientific interests that spanned from electrostatics to his invention of the vacuum pump.

With a succession of vacuum pumps, each better than the last, von Geuricke was like a kid in a toy factory, pumping the air out of anything he could find.  In the process, he showed that a vacuum would extinguish a flame and could raise water in a tube.

The Magdeburg Experiment. Image Credit

His most famous demonstration was, of course, the Magdeburg sphere demonstration.  In 1657 he fabricated two 20-inch hemispheres that he attached together with a vacuum seal and used his vacuum pump to evacuate the air from inside.  He then attached chains from the hemispheres to a team of eight horses on each side, for a total of 16 horses, who were unable to separate the spheres.  This dramatically demonstrated that air exerts a force on surfaces, and that Aristotle and Descartes were wrong—nature did allow a vacuum!

1667 – Isaac Newton Action at a Distance

When it came to the vacuum, Newton was agnostic.  His universal theory of gravitation posited action at a distance, but the intervening medium played no direct role.

Nothing comes from nothing, Nothing ever could.

Rogers and Hammerstein, The Sound of Music

This would seem to say that Newton had nothing to say about the vacuum, but his other major work, his Optiks, established particles as the elements of light rays.  Such light particles travelled easily through vacuum, so the particle theory of light came down on the empty side of space.

Statue of Isaac Newton by Sir Eduardo Paolozzi based on a painting by William Blake. Image Credit

1821 – Augustin Fresnel Luminiferous Aether

Today, we tend to think of Thomas Young as the chief proponent for the wave nature of light, going against the towering reputation of his own countryman Newton, and his courage and insights are admirable.  But it was Augustin Fresnel who put mathematics to the theory.  It was also Fresnel, working with his friend Francois Arago, who established that light waves are purely transverse.

For these contributions, Fresnel stands as one of the greatest physicists of the 1800’s.  But his transverse light waves gave birth to one of the greatest red herrings of that century—the luminiferous aether.  The argument went something like this, “if light is waves, then just as sound is oscillations of air, light must be oscillations of some medium that supports it – the luminiferous aether.”  Arago searched for effects of this aether in his astronomical observations, but he didn’t see it, and Fresnel developed a theory of “partial aether drag” to account for Arago’s null measurement.  Hippolyte Fizeau later confirmed the Fresnel “drag coefficient” in his famous measurement of the speed of light in moving water.  (For the full story of Arago, Fresnel and Fizeau, see Chapter 2 of “Interference”. [1])

But the transverse character of light also required that this unknown medium must have some stiffness to it, like solids that support transverse elastic waves.  This launched almost a century of alternative ideas of the aether that drew in such stellar actors as George Green, George Stokes and Augustin Cauchy with theories spanning from complete aether drag to zero aether drag with Fresnel’s partial aether drag somewhere in the middle.

1849 – Michael Faraday Field Theory

Micheal Faraday was one of the most intuitive physicists of the 1800’s. He worked by feel and mental images rather than by equations and proofs. He took nothing for granted, able to see what his experiments were telling him instead of looking only for what he expected.

This talent allowed him to see lines of force when he mapped out the magnetic field around a current-carrying wire. Physicists before him, including Ampere who developed a mathematical theory for the magnetic effects of a wire, thought only in terms of Newton’s action at a distance. All forces were central forces that acted in straight lines. Faraday’s experiments told him something different. The magnetic lines of force were circular, not straight. And they filled space. This realization led him to formulate his theory for the magnetic field.

Others at the time rejected this view, until William Thomson (the future Lord Kelvin) wrote a letter to Faraday in 1845 telling him that he had developed a mathematical theory for the field. He suggested that Faraday look for effects of fields on light, which Faraday found just one month later when he observed the rotation of the polarization of light when it propagated in a high-index material subject to a high magnetic field. This effect is now called Faraday Rotation and was one of the first experimental verifications of the direct effects of fields.

Nothing is more real than nothing.

Samuel Beckett

In 1949, Faraday stated his theory of fields in their strongest form, suggesting that fields in empty space were the repository of magnetic phenomena rather than magnets themselves [2]. He also proposed a theory of light in which the electric and magnetic fields induced each other in repeated succession without the need for a luminiferous aether.

1861 – James Clerk Maxwell Equations of Electromagnetism

James Clerk Maxwell pulled the various electric and magnetic phenomena together into a single grand theory, although the four succinct “Maxwell Equations” was condensed by Oliver Heaviside from Maxwell’s original 15 equations (written using Hamilton’s awkward quaternions) down to the 4 vector equations that we know and love today.

One of the most significant and most surprising thing to come out of Maxwell’s equations was the speed of electromagnetic waves that matched closely with the known speed of light, providing near certain proof that light was electromagnetic waves.

However, the propagation of electromagnetic waves in Maxwell’s theory did not rule out the existence of a supporting medium—the luminiferous aether.  It was still not clear that fields could exist in a pure vacuum but might still be like the stress fields in solids.

Late in his life, just before he died, Maxwell pointed out that no measurement of relative speed through the aether performed on a moving Earth could see deviations that were linear in the speed of the Earth but instead would be second order.  He considered that such second-order effects would be far to small ever to detect, but Albert Michelson had different ideas.

1887 – Albert Michelson Null Experiment

Albert Michelson was convinced of the existence of the luminiferous aether, and he was equally convinced that he could detect it.  In 1880, working in the basement of the Potsdam Observatory outside Berlin, he operated his first interferometer in a search for evidence of the motion of the Earth through the aether.  He had built the interferometer, what has come to be called a Michelson Interferometer, months earlier in the laboratory of Hermann von Helmholtz in the center of Berlin, but the footfalls of the horse carriages outside the building disturbed the measurements too much—Postdam was quieter. 

But he could find no difference in his interference fringes as he oriented the arms of his interferometer parallel and orthogonal to the Earth’s motion.  A simple calculation told him that his interferometer design should have been able to detect it—just barely—so the null experiment was a puzzle.

Seven years later, again in a basement (this time in a student dormitory at Western Reserve College in Cleveland, Ohio), Michelson repeated the experiment with an interferometer that was ten times more sensitive.  He did this in collaboration with Edward Morley.  But again, the results were null.  There was no difference in the interference fringes regardless of which way he oriented his interferometer.  Motion through the aether was undetectable.

(Michelson has a fascinating backstory, complete with firestorms (literally) and the Wild West and a moment when he was almost committed to an insane asylum against his will by a vengeful wife.  To read all about this, see Chapter 4: After the Gold Rush in my recent book Interference (Oxford, 2023)).

The Michelson Morley experiment did not create the crisis in physics that it is sometimes credited with.  They published their results, and the physics world took it in stride.  Voigt and Fitzgerald and Lorentz and Poincaré toyed with various ideas to explain it away, but there had already been so many different models, from complete drag to no drag, that a few more theories just added to the bunch.

But they all had their heads in a haze.  It took an unknown patent clerk in Switzerland to blow away the wisps and bring the problem into the crystal clear.

1905 – Albert Einstein Relativity

So much has been written about Albert Einstein’s “miracle year” of 1905 that it has lapsed into a form of physics mythology.  Looking back, it seems like his own personal Big Bang, springing forth out of the vacuum.  He published 5 papers that year, each one launching a new approach to physics on a bewildering breadth of problems from statistical mechanics to quantum physics, from electromagnetism to light … and of course, Special Relativity [3].

Whereas the others, Voigt and Fitzgerald and Lorentz and Poincaré, were trying to reconcile measurements of the speed of light in relative motion, Einstein just replaced all that musing with a simple postulate, his second postulate of relativity theory:

  2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body. Hence …

Albert Einstein, Annalen der Physik, 1905

And the rest was just simple algebra—in complete agreement with Michelson’s null experiment, and with Fizeau’s measurement of the so-called Fresnel drag coefficient, while also leading to the famous E = mc2 and beyond.

There is no aether.  Electromagnetic waves are self-supporting in vacuum—changing electric fields induce changing magnetic fields that induce, in turn, changing electric fields—and so it goes. 

The vacuum is vacuum—nothing!  Except that it isn’t.  It is still full of things.

1931 – P. A. M Dirac Antimatter

The Dirac equation is the famous end-product of P. A. M. Dirac’s search for a relativistic form of the Schrödinger equation. It replaces the asymmetric use in Schrödinger’s form of a second spatial derivative and a first time derivative with Dirac’s form using only first derivatives that are compatible with relativistic transformations [4]. 

One of the immediate consequences of this equation is a solution that has negative energy. At first puzzling and hard to interpret [5], Dirac eventually hit on the amazing proposal that these negative energy states are real particles paired with ordinary particles. For instance, the negative energy state associated with the electron was an anti-electron, a particle with the same mass as the electron, but with positive charge. Furthermore, because the anti-electron has negative energy and the electron has positive energy, these two particles can annihilate and convert their mass energy into the energy of gamma rays. This audacious proposal was confirmed by the American physicist Carl Anderson who discovered the positron in 1932.

The existence of particles and anti-particles, combined with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, suggests that vacuum fluctuations can spontaneously produce electron-positron pairs that would then annihilate within a time related to the mass energy

Although this is an exceedingly short time (about 10-21 seconds), it means that the vacuum is not empty, but contains a frothing sea of particle-antiparticle pairs popping into and out of existence.

1938 – M. C. Escher Negative Space

Scientists are not the only ones who think about empty space. Artists, too, are deeply committed to a visual understanding of our world around us, and the uses of negative space in art dates back virtually to the first cave paintings. However, artists and art historians only talked explicitly in such terms since the 1930’s and 1940’s [6].  One of the best early examples of the interplay between positive and negative space was a print made by M. C. Escher in 1938 titled “Day and Night”.

M. C. Escher. Day and Night. Image Credit

1946 – Edward Purcell Modified Spontaneous Emission

In 1916 Einstein laid out the laws of photon emission and absorption using very simple arguments (his modus operandi) based on the principles of detailed balance. He discovered that light can be emitted either spontaneously or through stimulated emission (the basis of the laser) [7]. Once the nature of vacuum fluctuations was realized through the work of Dirac, spontaneous emission was understood more deeply as a form of stimulated emission caused by vacuum fluctuations. In the absence of vacuum fluctuations, spontaneous emission would be inhibited. Conversely, if vacuum fluctuations are enhanced, then spontaneous emission would be enhanced.

This effect was observed by Edward Purcell in 1946 through the observation of emission times of an atom in a RF cavity [8]. When the atomic transition was resonant with the cavity, spontaneous emission times were much faster. The Purcell enhancement factor is

where Q is the “Q” of the cavity, and V is the cavity volume. The physical basis of this effect is the modification of vacuum fluctuations by the cavity modes caused by interference effects. When cavity modes have constructive interference, then vacuum fluctuations are larger, and spontaneous emission is stimulated more quickly.

1948 – Hendrik Casimir Vacuum Force

Interference effects in a cavity affect the total energy of the system by excluding some modes which become inaccessible to vacuum fluctuations. This lowers the internal energy internal to a cavity relative to free space outside the cavity, resulting in a net “pressure” acting on the cavity. If two parallel plates are placed in close proximity, this would cause a force of attraction between them. The effect was predicted in 1948 by Hendrik Casimir [9], but it was not verified experimentally until 1997 by S. Lamoreaux at Yale University [10].

Two plates brought very close feel a pressure exerted by the higher vacuum energy density external to the cavity.

1949 – Shinichiro Tomonaga, Richard Feynman and Julian Schwinger QED

The physics of the vacuum in the years up to 1948 had been a hodge-podge of ad hoc theories that captured the qualitative aspects, and even some of the quantitative aspects of vacuum fluctuations, but a consistent theory was lacking until the work of Tomonaga in Japan, Feynman at Cornell and Schwinger at Harvard. Feynman and Schwinger both published their theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED) in 1949. They were actually scooped by Tomonaga, who had developed his theory earlier during WWII, but physics research in Japan had been cut off from the outside world. It was when Oppenheimer received a letter from Tomonaga in 1949 that the West became aware of his work. All three received the Nobel Prize for their work on QED in 1965. Precision tests of QED now make it one of the most accurately confirmed theories in physics.

Richard Feynman’s first “Feynman diagram”.

1964 – Peter Higgs and The Higgs

The Higgs particle, known as “The Higgs”, was the brain-child of Peter Higgs, Francois Englert and Gerald Guralnik in 1964. Higgs’ name became associated with the theory because of a response letter he wrote to an objection made about the theory. The Higg’s mechanism is spontaneous symmetry breaking in which a high-symmetry potential can lower its energy by distorting the field, arriving at a new minimum in the potential. This mechanism can allow the bosons that carry force to acquire mass (something the earlier Yang-Mills theory could not do). 

Spontaneous symmetry breaking is a ubiquitous phenomenon in physics. It occurs in the solid state when crystals can lower their total energy by slightly distorting from a high symmetry to a low symmetry. It occurs in superconductors in the formation of Cooper pairs that carry supercurrents. And here it occurs in the Higgs field as the mechanism to imbues particles with mass . 

Conceptual graph of a potential surface where the high symmetry potential is higher than when space is distorted to lower symmetry. Image Credit

The theory was mostly ignored for its first decade, but later became the core of theories of electroweak unification. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at Geneva was built to detect the boson, announced in 2012. Peter Higgs and Francois Englert were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2013, just one year after the discovery.

The Higgs field permeates all space, and distortions in this field around idealized massless point particles are observed as mass. In this way empty space becomes anything but.

1981 – Alan Guth Inflationary Big Bang

Problems arose in observational cosmology in the 1970’s when it was understood that parts of the observable universe that should have been causally disconnected were in thermal equilibrium. This could only be possible if the universe were much smaller near the very beginning. In January of 1981, Alan Guth, then at Cornell University, realized that a rapid expansion from an initial quantum fluctuation could be achieved if an initial “false vacuum” existed in a positive energy density state (negative vacuum pressure). Such a false vacuum could relax to the ordinary vacuum, causing a period of very rapid growth that Guth called “inflation”. Equilibrium would have been achieved prior to inflation, solving the observational problem.Therefore, the inflationary model posits a multiplicities of different types of “vacuum”, and once again, simple vacuum is not so simple.

Energy density as a function of a scalar variable. Quantum fluctuations create a “false vacuum” that can relax to “normal vacuum: by expanding rapidly. Image Credit

1998 – Saul Pearlmutter Dark Energy

Einstein didn’t make many mistakes, but in the early days of General Relativity he constructed a theoretical model of a “static” universe. A central parameter in Einstein’s model was something called the Cosmological Constant. By tuning it to balance gravitational collapse, he tuned the universe into a static Ithough unstable) state. But when Edwin Hubble showed that the universe was expanding, Einstein was proven incorrect. His Cosmological Constant was set to zero and was considered to be a rare blunder.

Fast forward to 1999, and the Supernova Cosmology Project, directed by Saul Pearlmutter, discovered that the expansion of the universe was accelerating. The simplest explanation was that Einstein had been right all along, or at least partially right, in that there was a non-zero Cosmological Constant. Not only is the universe not static, but it is literally blowing up. The physical origin of the Cosmological Constant is believed to be a form of energy density associated with the space of the universe. This “extra” energy density has been called “Dark Energy”, filling empty space.

The expanding size of the Universe. Image Credit

Bottom Line

The bottom line is that nothing, i.e., the vacuum, is far from nothing. It is filled with a froth of particles, and energy, and fields, and potentials, and broken symmetries, and negative pressures, and who knows what else as modern physics has been much ado about this so-called nothing, almost more than it has been about everything else.

References:

[1] David D. Nolte, Interference: The History of Optical Interferometry and the Scientists Who Tamed Light (Oxford University Press, 2023)

[2] L. Peirce Williams in “Faraday, Michael.” Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography, vol. 4, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2008, pp. 527-540.

[3] A. Einstein, “On the electrodynamics of moving bodies,” Annalen Der Physik 17, 891-921 (1905).

[4] Dirac, P. A. M. (1928). “The Quantum Theory of the Electron”. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 117 (778): 610–624.

[5] Dirac, P. A. M. (1930). “A Theory of Electrons and Protons”. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 126 (801): 360–365.

[6] Nikolai M Kasak, Physical Art: Action of positive and negative space, (Rome, 1947/48) [2d part rev. in 1955 and 1956].

[7] A. Einstein, “Strahlungs-Emission un -Absorption nach der Quantentheorie,” Verh. Deutsch. Phys. Ges. 18, 318 (1916).

[8] Purcell, E. M. (1946-06-01). “Proceedings of the American Physical Society: Spontaneous Emission Probabilities at Ratio Frequencies”. Physical Review. American Physical Society (APS). 69 (11–12): 681.

[9] Casimir, H. B. G. (1948). “On the attraction between two perfectly conducting plates”. Proc. Kon. Ned. Akad. Wet. 51: 793.

[10] Lamoreaux, S. K. (1997). “Demonstration of the Casimir Force in the 0.6 to 6 μm Range”. Physical Review Letters. 78 (1): 5–8.


Read more in Books by David Nolte at Oxford University Press