Read an Excerpt
Reasoning About Luck
Probability and Its Uses in Physics
By Vinay Ambegaokar Dover Publications, Inc.
Copyright © 2017 Vinay Ambegaokar
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-486-81879-5
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility
Albert Einstein
The purpose of this little book is to introduce the interested non-scientist to statistical reasoning and its use in physics. I have in mind someone who knows little mathematics and little or no physics. My wider aim is to capture something of the nature of the scientific enterprise as it is carried out by physicists – particularly theoretical physicists.
Every physicist is familiar with the amiable party conversation that ensues when someone – whose high school experience of physics left a residue of dread and despair – says brightly : 'How interesting! What kind of physics do you do?' How natural to hope that passing from the general to the particular might dispel the dread and alleviate the despair. Inevitably, though, such a conversation is burdened by a sense of futility: because there are few common premises, there is no reasonable starting point. Yet it would be foolishly arrogant not to recognize the seriousness behind the question. As culprit or as savior, science is perceived as the force in modern society, and scientific illiteracy is out of fashion.
However much I would like to be a guru in a new surge toward literacy in physics, ministering to the masses on television and becoming rich beyond the dreams of avarice, this, alas, is not to be. Among other things, I am immune to descriptions of science which, even when transported by the enthusiasms and exaltations of the teller, are indistinguishable from fairy stories because they offer the reader no way of questioning or reasoning about what is being told. It is precisely the questioning and reasoning listener that physics addresses.
A parable may illustrate the point. Some years ago at Cornell, Hans Bethe, whose discoveries and leadership had made him a magisterial figure in physics, was interrupted in mid-equation by a young man who said: 'No. That's not right.' Pause. The interruption was only a shade more categorical than many that occur during seminars in theoretical physics. Fingers against jaw, Bethe pondered for a few more moments. Then, in a Germanically accented American that his acquaintances will be able to hear he said: 'Gosch ... back to the drawing board.' A small part of his reasoning had been demolished. An exchange like this is possible because mathematics is the language of theoretical physics, and reasonable people can agree when a small mathematical error has been made. Could something like this happen at a lecture by a famous historian or deconstructionist critic? Not, I think, in the same way.
To engage in a discourse with you, the reader, in which I try to introduce you to new ideas and to offer you the wherewithal to say: 'No. That's not right,' I see no way out of using elementary mathematics. If those are alarming words, I hasten to add, soothingly, that you already know much of what is needed and that this book will teach you the rest.
A few paragraphs back I used the words literacy in physics. What does the expression mean to me; and in what sense will reading these rather dithyrambic pages confer it on you? Well, there are many levels of literacy. To read some of the poems of T.S. Eliot one would seem to need some acquaintance with the ancients in Greek and Latin, a smattering of Dante, a knowledge of French Symbolist poetry, and bits and pieces of the Upanishads and the Bhagvat Gita – a German translation of the latter being permitted. All this may be needed to comprehend Eliot thoroughly. But, given that life is too short for thoroughness in all matters, it is better to have a deeply felt and personal sense of a few poems than to slog superficially through many.
Physics is a body of knowledge and a point of view. Both have grown out of the astonishing discovery in seventeenth century Europe that the observed workings of inanimate nature, from how the planets move to how a prism makes a rainbow, can be accurately summarized in mathematical terms. Why the world is thus regulated and why we have evolved to a point a little beyond cats from which we can perceive these regularities are questions for which science has no answers. †
That mathematical relationships ('Laws') do exist is demonstrably true. The physical laws that have been discovered – by a mixture of observation, intuition, and a desire for a concise and therefore in some sense beautiful description – do not merely organize experience, they organize it in a manner that encourages disprovable predictions. The wave theory of light predicted a bright spot in the center of the shadow cast by a circular screen, a result so apparently absurd that it made believers of disbelievers when it was found. In physics, the search for unifying laws is a continuing quest. Great unifications have, however, occurred rarely; when they do they become part of the physicist's general knowledge and confer well-deserved immortality on their discoverers. The daily work of most theoretical physicists is more mundane. Some, working in areas where the laws are not well-formulated, have the satisfaction of constructing bits and pieces of mathematical structure that explain on general grounds why observed phenomena occur and unobserved do not, building blocks for greater constructions to come. Others are able to understand how an apparently bizarre observation is a consequence of accepted theory, or – and this is a great joy – of predicting quantitative relations between measurements, or phenomena few would have anticipated. When there are disagreements it is often unclear whether the observations, the mathematics, or both are at fault. The resolution of conflicts is emotional and often heated. More than in most fields of scholarship, though, when the dust settles, it settles for good. This suggests that the physical study of nature is an act of uncovering a hidden structure. That we are inextricably part of the structure makes its study all the more fascinating.
In this description of physics as the work done by physicists I have passed from the seventeenth century to our times with lightning speed. In scientific matters there is an unusual kinship through the ages. Consider some modern technology and ask what branches of physics come into play and what names emerge as the earliest contributors whose work is still actively in use. In this game I shall ignore, without in any way intending to belittle, the scientific and engineering genius that connects the basic physics with the manufactured product. What shall we pick? Space is in the news these days. The design of a modern space vehicle requires the following interrelated disciplines: the mechanics, or science of motion, of Isaac Newton (1642–1727); the thermodynamics, or science of heat, anticipated by Sadi Carnot (1796–1832) who called it 'La puissance motrice du feu' – the motive power of fire – and formulated by Rudolf Clausius (1822–88) and Lord Kelvin (1824–1907); and, the hydrodynamics, or theory of the flow of fluids, for which the first important steps were taken by Daniel Bernoulli (1700–82) and Leonhard Euler (1707–83). The sophisticated electronic and communication systems are ultimately based on: the unified theory of electricity, magnetism, and light of James Clerk Maxwell (1831–79); the statistical mechanics associated with Ludwig Boltzmann (1844–1906) and Josiah Willard Gibbs (1839–1903); and the quantum mechanics invented by Werner Heisenberg (1901–76) and Erwin Schrödinger (1887–1961). In fact, the subjects listed, together with the special theory of relativity of Albert Einstein (1879–1955), who modified Newton's mechanics to unify it with Maxwell's electromagnetism, taking into account certain unexpected properties of light, make up an introduction to the study of physics, or a base for the study of engineering. Someone who has worked his or her way through this curriculum is, unquestionably, literate in physics.
A two-year course of study with mathematical prerequisites, needed to complete the above program, is too much to ask of someone with no professional interest in science who, nonetheless, would like some insight into what physics is about. It is possible to conduct a survey of Great Ideas in Physics, colloquially called 'Physics for Poets.' Such a survey is not at all easy to do and would at my hands become a once-over-too-lightly affair: the brothers Grimm instead of Galileo. † So, when my chance came to teach a course on science for non-scientists, I decided to try something different. For the purpose at hand, I saw no particular virtue in completeness and no particular vice in the unconventional. My course, which had the same title and subject matter as this book, attempted to convey the way in which physicists think about irreversibility and entropy, heat and work, and, very briefly, quantum mechanics: conceptually interesting topics tied together by the need for probabilistic concepts. An intuitive introduction to the mathematics of probability was provided. I had not anticipated that among the students who later seemed to profit from the course would be some whose recollection of high school algebra was hazy. Some mathematical folk-remedies were, therefore, also thrown in. Here is the description written for the second offering of the course:
'A course for inquiring non-scientists and non-mathematicians which will attempt to explain when and how natural scientists can cope rationally with chance. Starting from simple questions – such as how one decides if an event is 'likely,' 'unlikely,' or just incomprehensible – the course will attempt to reach an understanding of more subtle points: why it is, for example, that in large systems likely events can become overwhelmingly likely. From these last considerations it may be possible to introduce the interested student to the second law of thermodynamics, that putative bridge between C.P. Snow's two cultures. Another physical theory, quantum mechanics, in which chance occurs, though in a somewhat mysterious way, may be touched on.
'The course is intended for students with not much more preparation than high school algebra. The instructor will from time to time use a programmable pocket calculator to do calculations with class participation. Some of the key ideas will be introduced in this way.
The dearth of appropriate readings for a course of this kind was a source of complaint during its first trial. As of this writing, the instructor has high hopes of producing lecture notes or a very rough draft of a short book. Here are some questions that a student may expect to learn to answer. In a class of 26 people why is there (and what does it mean that there is) a 60% chance that two persons have the same birthday? If 51% of 1000 randomly selected individuals prefer large cars to small, what information is gleaned about the car preferences of the population at large? Why does a cube of ice in a glass of soda in your living room never grow in size? – a silly question that can be answered seriously. What can and cannot be said about the way in which the image appears on a developing photographic plate?'
As it turned out, I was able to get somewhat further than I anticipated, but I never did write the short book that was promised. Here it is. I have found it very hard to do, and have often wished that I had not so irrevocably promised to explain everything honestly. But I did so promise, and I think I have so done. You will decide if it was worth it.
A word of warning about the virtues and vices of this book. For every topic covered in some detail, one nearby which any systematic treatment would include is ignored. Perhaps Julia Child says it best in Mastering the Art of French Cooking, 'No pressed duck or sauce rouennaise? No room!'
† If you are interested in reading about attempts at answers, the key-words Anthropic Principle will get you started, at your own risk, in a good library.
† Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), arguably the first modern physicist, who said, about the 'book' of Nature: '... it cannot be read until we have learned the language and become familiar with the characters in which it is written. It is written in mathematical language.'
CHAPTER 2
The likely, the unlikely, and the incomprehensible
Lest men suspect your tale untrue Keep probability in view
John Gay
The mathematical theory of probability was born somewhat disreputably in the study of gambling. It quickly matured into a practical way of dealing with uncertainties and as a branch of pure mathematics. When it was about 200 years old, the concept was introduced into physics as a way of dealing with the chaotic microscopic motions that constitute heat. In our century probability has found its way into the foundations of quantum mechanics, the physical theory of the atomic and subatomic world. The improbable yet true tale of how a way of thinking especially suited to the gambling salon became necessary for understanding the inner workings of nature is the topic of this book.
The next three chapters contain some of the basic ideas of the mathematical theory of probability, presented by way of a few examples. Although common sense will help us to get started and avoid irrelevancies, we shall find that a little mathematical analysis yields simple, useful, easy to remember, and quite unobvious results. The necessary mathematics will be picked up as we go along.
In the couplet by John Gay (1688–1732), the author of the Beggar's Opera, probability has a traditional meaning, implying uncertainty but reasonable likelihood. At roughly the same time that the verse was written, the word was acquiring its mathematical meaning. This first occurs in English, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, in the title of a book, published in 1718, by Abraham de Moivre (1667–1754), an English mathematician of French Hugenot extraction: The Doctrine of Chances: A Method of Calculating the Probability of Events in Play. The analysis of games of chance had its correct modern beginnings in France in the 1650s and attracted the attention of thinkers like Blaise Pascal (1623–62), Pierre de Fermat (1601–65), and Christiaan Huygens (1629–95) – all of whom also made important contributions to physics. †
Everyday words in the scientific vocabulary – field, charge, and strangeness are examples – usually have precise technical meanings remote from their ordinary ones and much less well known. 'Probability' was taken over so long ago and used so aptly and the concept applies or is thought to apply to so many situations that the technical meaning has slowly edged its way onto center stage. In mathematics and in science generally a numerical value is attached to the word: uncertain events are rated on a scale from zero to one; something that is unlikely is said to have a low probability. Although this is now part of the common general vocabulary, it deserves a more precise statement.
The technical use of the word probability applies in general to a special class of situations. It presupposes a repeatable experiment or observation with more than one possible outcome controlled by chance, which means that before the fact, precisely which outcome will occur is neither known nor deducible. For such an experiment, the probability of a given outcome is a numerical estimate, based on experience or theory, of the fractional occurrence of that outcome in a large number of trials. ‡
Several questions are raised by this definition. What observations are both repeatable and uncertain? What are the possible outcomes? How are probabilities assigned? What precisely is the meaning of a 'large number' of trials? What good is a concept that is, on the face of it, so uncertain?
Since our subject was born at the gaming table, it is not surprising that these questions are most easily answered in the context of gambling. They are harder to address in less controlled situations where the notion of probability may nonetheless be useful, except by hypothesizing unprovable analogies with games of chance.
Let us start then by considering the rolling of an ordinary six-sided die. It is clear that this is something that can be done over and over again, and that the outcome in each case will be that one or another of the faces is uppermost. (It is natural to ignore as misthrows rolls with other outcomes, e.g. becoming wedged at an angle in the pile of a carpet.) Unless the die is launched by a very precise machine or a very clever cheat, there is enough variability in the experiment to rule out the possibility of predicting the result of any given throw. The roll of a die is, with the minor caveats thrown in to calm excessively logical minds, a clear cut example of a repeatable experiment with random outcomes.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Reasoning About Luck by Vinay Ambegaokar. Copyright © 2017 Vinay Ambegaokar. Excerpted by permission of Dover Publications, Inc..
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
