Frontier Exclusive Visionary Interview for hardware, software, system related business and and academia




Frontier Journal (FJ): Good morning. Professor Frank Wilczek is a physics professor at MIT. He's a 2004 Nobel Prize co-winner in physics for his joint work with Professor David Ross and Professor David Pulitzer for the discovery of a theory of strong interaction. Professor Wilczek, my first question would be, your Nobel Prize work was did as part of you PhD-PhD dissertation research at Princeton University when you were just 20 years old. Can you provide us some context on this research and how you accomplished it with your advisor, Professor David Ross, at Princeton.

Prof. Frank Wilczek (FW): Yes, well, there are four fundamental forces in nature. There's the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force which have been known for a long time for which there have been beautiful theories for a long time. The gravitational theory - started with Newton and then Einstein and an even better theory, general relativity, and electromagnetism was formulated with beautiful equations by Maxwell in the 19th century.

The two other basic forces are the weak force and the strong force, and they were discovered only in the 20th century when people investigated atomic nuclei and found that they needed new forces to describe what goes on there, and the strong force is the most powerful force in nature. It's the force that holds atomic nuclei together and even as we now know holds protons together in terms of their more basic building blocks, quarks and muons. But no good theory, no beautiful equations we known for strong force. It was a very confusing situation, and what we did was find out what those equations are and how to work with them, and that was the essential part of the work. I was very fortunate to be part of that. I was a very young student, as you mentioned.

At Princeton, I just-not long before changed from studying mathematics rather than physics, but studying mathematics was exactly what I wanted to do, and fortunately at Princeton the math building was sitting right next to it so think about it, what might be interesting, I wandered over to the physics building and started listening to seminars and talking to people and I quickly learned that some very exciting things were happening in physics. It was a time when ideas called renormalization and gauge theories were becoming fruitful and I was very excited by that. And started thinking about putting those ideas together. Different ideas. And that was a kind of problem that was essentially mathematical. You didn't have to know a lot of physics, you just had to know the right thing, and-and be hardworking and good at mathematics to put them together. And this is the calculations that showed them how to combine ideas about quantum field theory and what's called renormalization, how forces change with distance.

That turned out to describe phenomena that had been observed in the strong interactions by varying theorists. The only framework-there was only one framework, one kind of theory that could possibly do justice to the data, and so it was a sort of gift from heaven that these theoretical considerations led us to a unique theory, what happened. And it's been extremely fruitful because we were lead to very unique equations for the strong interactions. That turned out to be very similar to the equations for electromagnetism, and for the weak interaction. So the possibility of a unifying theory for all the interactions became tangible. Also the essence of my calculations was to show the strong interaction, although it's the most powerful in nature.

Gets weaker as you study its behavior at short distances or at large energies, and one is that it suggests the possibility that since the strong interaction is getting weaker, it might be unified with the other interactions. Which was also suggested by the fact that they have similar kinds of equations. And the other is that since when the interaction gets weaker it's easier to do accurate calculations and so that enables us to do calculations to predict the behavior of quarks and muons at very high energy which is useful for describing things that happen at accelerators. Investigating fundamental forces, what happened in the early moments of the big bang when particles have a lot of energy and are close together so that the behavior at high energies and short distances is what's important so the fact that that becomes simple according to our theory made it possible to investigate the early moments of the big bang and to investigate what's happening at accelerators in a way that we couldn't do before.

FJ: I see. Okay. So you are big believer of simple is beautiful, made by Albert Einstein.

So in your perspective, how far away for theoretical physics to achieve the dream made by Albert Einstein, it's called the Grand Unified Field Theory? How far away?

FW: Well, I think we've come along way since Einstein and others made that vision.

It really goes back, way back, to the ancient Greeks, the idea of getting a fully mathematical conceptual theory of nature. And we have a-I mean, although we're not all the way there, we have a remarkable complete and profound understanding of nature on the basis of these beautiful equations. The-in order to get to situations where those equations don't work, we have to consider very extreme astrophysical or cosmological limits. What goes on deep inside neutron stars or in the early moments of the big bang. Or make trouble for ourselves by colliding particles at ultra-high energies at accelerators because everything else we can describe using these equations. So in some sense we're already realizing the dream. We have beautiful equations for almost everything.

Dirac said way back in the 1930s when quantum mechanics was discovered that-that at that point we knew the equations for all of chemistry and most of physics. That-and we've gone much further. Whether we'll be able to finish the job and describe literally everything, I'm not so sure about that.

I think we'll learn more and more; I'm very-the next great accelerator Large Hadron Collider or LHC that's now being completed at Cern near Geneva, I think that's going to - Bring our understanding to a new level. That's-there are things in the universe that we don't understand, so called dark matter and dark energy.

So there's a lot we don't understand, I think we'll understand more-much-maybe understand a more coherent view of how the forces fit together in coming years, but I don't think it'll-I'm not at all sure that we'll reach the end. There probably will still be questions left unresolved. For quite awhile.

FJ: Yeah. I see, I see. So in the previous answer you mentioned that there are four forces in nature. Basically strong forces, weak forces discovered in this-actually in last century, I guess.

FW: Yeah.

FJ: Yeah, yeah. And gravity, discovered and verified by Isaac Newton and also electromagnetic I guess discovered by Maxwell and verified probably by Hertz. Now -yeah. My question would be, now, from-based on gravity people now have airplanes, I've seen. And based on electromagnetic theory we have electricity, telephone, cell phone, you know, telecommunications industry, all that. So what would be strong force and weak force bring us to those tangible things that our general public can touch and feel and enjoy their, you know-

FW: Wealth. The weak force, what underlies many forms of radioactivity, mainly. So-it underlies medical applications of radio isotopes. Things like that.

The strong force-oh, I should also say, the weak force is-and the strong force-are vital in understanding how the stars work, which is ultimately the source of energy on earth, but then when we come to the strong-now, one of the important frontiers of technology in physics, learning to harness the strong force. That's what's done in nuclear reactors and of course nuclear weapons.

So-so that's, that's where the strong force plays a role in technology, mainly-well, the strong and weak forces work together in technology because they're both important in understanding how nuclei behave.

For that matter, the electromagnetic force - But - So it's nuclear medicine, nuclear reactors, nuclear weapons, all those things.

FJ: Okay, I see, I see, I see. So you mentioned that if-theoretical physics, your research, your daily job, is-focuses on analyzing ridiculously small, such as particles and incomprehensibly large, such as universe. You know-but, you know could you explain how you unify those micro things to those macro things like universe. Particular theory -

FW: The thing is that to understand how the universe is today, one must understand how it started because a lot of what we observe today is determined by what kind of conditions were in the very, very early universe, and our theory of the early universe is based on the big bang, that is the idea that early in the history of the universe it was much hotter and much denser than what it is today, and it was full of particles with enormous energy very close together and to describe what was happening in the early moments we need to understand what-how matter behaves when the particles have very, very high energy. So that-that's how they get tied together, and that's been a very, very fruitful enterprise. As we understand more and more about how particles behaved in the big bang we can run the movie-I mean we can start with very, very hot fireball, figure out what comes out, and that's a very good way of understanding what the universe is like today. That it emerged from a simple fireball early on.

FJ: Okay, I see. I see. So do you think in modern physics, is theoretical physics drive experimental physics or vice-verse. Since we now see both theoretical physics and experimental physics. The problem, you know

FW: I think that's a good idea - right there. It goes back and forth. Sometimes the experiment gets ahead of theory, and there are many, many phenomena that are poorly understood, and it's really up to experiments to clarify the situation. And then occasionally there are big leaps in theoretical understanding and all of a sudden the-the experiments aren't giving anything puzzling anymore. We've figured out what the experiments are telling us. And then it's theory in the lead. Theory can suggest new possibilities, new ways of making the equations more beautiful or more logically coherent, and then the experiments have to see whether those theories are correct. Now I would say that in my career, at the very beginning and when I started my career in the early 1970s-

There were a lot of experimental facts that weren't understood and really the field was being led by experiments, but then we made tremendous progress in the 1970s and then we clarified what those problems were and we did such a good job in some sense-I mean, 'we' involves many people-we did such a good job in explaining observed phenomena, getting what's called a standard model, that there weren't any puzzling phenomena left. I mean any phenomena that didn't fit within the framework of the standard model. Well, that's an overstatement, there are actually lots of loose ends, but the standard model clarified-it became a very different endeavor. Instead of being lead by experimental discoveries that we had to then theorize and puzzle over, we had an extremely good theory that experiments had-had to try to shoot down. Had to work hard to find new things.

And so far they haven't. They-the-but what happened is that theory is so suggestive that-and so mathematically attractive and yet widely flawed that it suggested ways to make up improvements by playing with the equations, but the equations themselves suggested ways that it might be improved and so theory got ahead and I'm making predictions for new phenomena and I think what's going to happen at the LHC is these theoretical ideas which got very well developed in the 70s and 80s especially, ideas about supersymmetry and unification-

Will finally-and the Higgs par-Higgs phenomena-that these theoretical ideas that got ahead of experiments will finally be tested. Experiment-the machine will finally have enough power to really test those ideas. So-so the history was in the 70s-in the early 70s-and those decades before that experiment was ahead of theory, and since the mid 70s then, and now I think-I hope and I think-

That experiment is going to catch up and I don't know what'll happen.

I think it'll be a very interesting time, and it's very unclear exactly what's going to happen but I-but I'm very optimistic that exciting things will happen and will lead us to new levels of understanding.

FJ: Yes, I see. So being here with Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Professor Frank Wilczek at MIT. Professor Wilczek, my next question will be, what is the status of experimental work on your other-other theoretical discoveries. Since you've been at Un-FJ: because for decades, such as Anyons or Axions or those kinds of things.

FW: Right, well, I mentioned that the LHC is going to be a very exciting machine, and those ideas that I worked in on the late 1970s and early 80s on unification and what's called supersymmetry I think will be tested at the LHC. So we'll see if those ideas were on the right track or not. So that's one very exciting thing. The others things you mentioned are also gelling, I think. Anyons are a different aspect of my work that was mainly in the later 80s and early 90s and that has to do not with fundamental particles or interactions at high energy, but almost the opposite. That is, behavior of lots of electrons together - At low energy.

Where quantum mechanics kind of comes into its own and the electronics that we know about and that's the basis of so much technology today-

FJ: Superconductor theory.

FW: Yeah. It changes its character. There are new things that happen or are predicted to happen that are the- well, it's a long story -

And I won't attempt to explain the technical details, but they were startling-I mean, coming out of ideas I worked on, there were startling ideas for how electrons might behave at low energy in strong magnetic fields and certain exotic materials. And for a long time these ideas were very theoretical. It's another case where theory got ahead of experiments. But now the experiments are catching up and this-the-it's a very exciting time there too because the technology to do these experiments which involves not accelerators but rather working at very low temperatures with very pure samples of special materials, that that has really started to come together so that there predictions about what are called Anyons can-are in the process of being tested, and-and they suggest the possibility of a new kind of electronics that I call Anyonics that gets connected to ideas about quantum computing and new kinds of devices that very well may be the future of electronic technology. Certainly a new branch of technology. So it's very exciting. I just-I'm teaching a course in that now, and I just today went to a seminar by an experimentalist on something called Graphene which looks a very, very promising way of making this stuff more practical. So that's very exciting.

And then Axions are another-also sort of coming out of the standard model. A suggestion for a way to improve the equation which the-want to expect new kinds of particles, which I called Axions. The Axions have many remarkable properties, but they haven't-well, one of the unfortunate remarkable properties is that they're very difficult to observe. Theoretically.

They're predicted to be very difficult to observe, and they haven't been observed so it's still very hypothetical, their existence, but the equations certainly suggest it. And when you work out their consequences in the big bang, you're led to expect that Axions are all around us. But they interact very, very weakly with ordinary matter so we don't notice them easily but they're all around us. And it may not be a coincidence that astronomers have detected some kind of mass that they call dark-that is totally invisible as far as any way of observing it, that interacts very weakly with ordinary matter, can't be seen in telescopes, seems to be totally transparent. So I suspect that at least part of that dark matter is these Axions, and, well, I hope within my lifetime to observe them. In a convincing way.

So far the evidence is very indirect.

But the cosmology is-is-and the logic that leads to them is, I think, so beautiful that it can't be entirely wrong, so I-

So I'm hopeful about that.

FJ: Sure, sure. Sure. So now in terms of-from-nowadays [?] to energy is a very hot topic. Do you think modern physics can play significant roles similar to line of biology plays in electrical energy. Because energy used to be chemical. All was coal and nowadays the cornfield becomes oil field. So, superconductor is well-observed-

FW: I think the answer to this-now this is just intuition, this is not something I've worked on-

FJ: Sure, sure.

FW: It-well, it's not my specialty.

FJ: Your specialty is on prediction. You are good at that.

FW: Well, I guess, yeah, if you're loose enough about what-but my intuition, based on what I do know about physics and fundamental principles and I do have some knowledge of the field just from going to seminars and talking to my friends is that the fundamental fact here is that the sun gives-rains light and other forms of energy on earth that's ten thousand times the energy that we use in our technology, so if we can learn to capture even one thousandth that's coming down in an economical way we'll have ten times the energy that we use FJ: in a very clean form. So I think that's the future.

FJ: You mean solar energy in this case?

FW: Right. Solar energy.

FJ: I see. A lot of startups there.

FW: And I'm very optimistic that physics will supply ways of capturing one-at least one one-thousandth of that energy.

And I would be disappointed if in 50 years, and I hope I'm still alive then-

FJ: In 50 years if we hadn't found on the basis of physics a way to capture that kind of energy. Solar energy, on a massive scale, so that would breed a solution. Not only the solution to our energy problems but would-would vastly increase the worlds wealth, because in many ways energy is wealth, so we would have much more power. To make things and do things.

FJ: Sure, I understand.

FW: So that-I think that's one of the most important things that physcis can aspire to, and it's not at all crazy, in fact it's not that far from what we can do, we just-certaFJ: certain materials have to be improved a little bit and then it can happen.

I'm very optimistic about that.

FJ: Sure, sure. I see, I see. So I have two questions left to go. Now, this question could be sensitive, you may decline to answer it. Yeah, there is some research before I conduct this interview. You are from paradox-you know there is paradox there when we are discussing the origin of the universe. From theoretical physics' point of view and from Bible's point of view.

FW: Well, I mean, I understand I understand the physical picture of the early universe and it gives us a lot of insight into concrete phenomena. The Biblical accounts I think may give us some moral insight and a lot of insight into how ancient people thought about the world, but insofar as it makes statements about the physical constitution of the world, it hasn't-it isn't on the same level as the explanatory power.

FJ: Yeah, I agree. Because I come from the church also every Sunday morning. But that does not prevent me from believing physics. Yeah.

FW: It's a source of moral insight and inspiration, but it doesn't help us understand-at least doesn't help me-understand the physical nature of the universe very much.

FJ: Sure, sure. Fully agree. So before I let you go, my very last question would be, Professor Wilczek, could you offer us some advice even for those who are not working on physics, taking other parts of science and technology? Career advice?

FW: Well, my career advice is to support physics. I think there is a profound point here, that the market economy and capitalism is very good at supporting and rewarding and encouraging efforts where somebody benefits in the short term from-from somebody's endeavor. Where the helpful-and lots of people buy it, and they pay the person that developed the software, and there's an exchange. And that's very efficient, and that's done wonders for the way we live and works very well in many ways, however some of the most important and I think, at a deep level, the most important discoveries that advance the quality of life and the level of civilization don't work that way. They're contributions where the benefit on time is not focused on any one purchases but is sort of-is generally available to everybody. These scientific discoveries are like that.

It was fundamental research to the nature of quantum mechanics that really gave us computers, and the whole modern information technology. It wasn't Bill Gates that discovered the fundamental principles-

It was people who didn't make a lot of money from it, but who were-were curious and were able to get support from society to pursue that kind of thing, which pays off, big in the long run but doesn't-doesn't fit in with this sort of market immediate exchange. That people have the vision to support long term curiosity driven research, and that pays off in the long run, so that's what I think people should do.

A shining example of that was Bell Labs.

From which wonderful things came, and I think we need more of that kind of vision. Of doing research that has a long-term perspective and is not driven by some immediate perceived need but is sort of more visionary.

FJ: Yeah. So your point is both individuals and businesses should think and behave not only economically, also philosophically. Yeah. Very good, very good. Good insight. Thank you so much, Professor Frank Wilczek. Thank you for time.

FW: Thank you for some good questions.

FJ: My pleasure, my pleasure. Bye-bye.

FW: Bye.


Back to Home Page