The Infinite Monkey Cage - Quantum Physics

Episode Date: December 14, 2009

Physicist Brian Cox and comedian Robin Ince take a witty, irreverent and unashamedly rational look at the world according to science. Physicist turned comedian Ben Miller joins Brian and Robin to discuss quantum physics, and if astrology really shares its roots with more scientific pursuits. They also discuss the largest scientific experiment ever undertaken, currently storming ahead in a large underground tunnel just outside Geneva.

In our new podcast, Nature Answers, rural stories from a changing planet, we are traveling with you to Uganda and Ghana to meet the people on the front lines of climate change. We will share stories of how they are thriving using lessons learned from nature. And good news, it is working. Learn more by listening to Nature Answers wherever you get your podcasts. This is the first radio ad you can smell. The new Cinnabon pull apart only at Wendy's. It's ooey gooey and just five bucks with a small coffee all day long. Taxes extra at participating Wendy's until May 5th. Terms and conditions apply.

Thank you for downloading this programme from BBC Radio 4. For more information, visit bbc.co.uk slash radio 4. Welcome to another Infinite Monkey Cage, which comes to you from Radio 4. Well, in this particular universe, but we can't be certain if you're listening in a parallel universe where it's being broadcast from,

or indeed what it's actually about. I mean, in this universe, it's a mixture of wonderful science and odd meanders, whereas perhaps in another universe, it's a show about cooking parrotfish on a wooden wok. I think we've already gone too far. I'm Robin Ince. I'm without a science degree, but I am keen to learn. And I'm Brian Cox, and I have a science degree. And in today's show, we'll be discussing

the most misunderstood branch of science, quantum physics, to learn. And I'm Brian Cox and I have a science degree and in today's show we'll be discussing the most misunderstood branch of science, quantum physics, the outstanding recent success of the largest experiment ever attempted, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Geneva and some of the more outlandish and ridiculous theories of what we might find with it including time anomalies and terrorist baguettes. Terrorist baguettes is going to be possibly one of the high points, but for me, one of the most interesting parts of this show is that I am a Pisces and you're a Pisces and we're both presenting science shows, so there has to be something in it, doesn't there?

Don't. Don't even. Don't. Don't, Robin. At this point, I should say that merely the mention of the fact that we were going to be doing astrology in this show has led to three people stopping following us on Twitter out of sheer fury, which is, as we know, very Taurean. So physics, though, is the predominant subject today, and I don't actually know very much about physics

because it gives me a headache of confusion. I curse physics for being counter-instinctual, but to make up for my silence, we're joined by actor, writer, and man who failed to finish his PhD in quantum physics, Ben Miller. Ben, who is also a Pisces. Come on, Brian. There's definitely something in it. And science writer and broadcaster, Philip Bull, who's a Scorpio. So maybe there's not as much in it as I thought. Back to the science. Ben.

Welcome to the monkey cage. Now, what was it that made you give up a promising career serving the good of civilisation for a career prancing around in tights on the boards? Well, I couldn't help noticing, Brian, that, you know, whenever I told some sort of creaky gag at Footlights, it got a little bit of a reaction, but no-one ever applauded when I solved an equation. I mean, in all honesty

you know hand on heart you know i think that i always really really loved physics but i didn't have the technical ability you quite definitely need to pursue it to a high enough level and you know and i kind of thought better to do something that i feel i'm i'm really good at and i have a passion for than something i'm okay at and have a passion for. It doesn't in any way diminish my love of physics, but that love was somewhat unrequited. That's a very eloquent defence. So you didn't finish your PhD. How far did you get?

Well, I did it for three years, so I suppose I basically had the summer holiday and didn't write the essay. Most people are writing up at that point. Exactly. I mean, I was ready to start writing it up. Well, hopefully, at the end of the show, Ben, we might have a little bit of a surprise for you and some news on your PhD. But also, because we have...

That's slightly ominous. Yes, it's enigmatically ominous. It's my PhD supervisor. I'm leaving now. Please don't do that to me. We've had a lot of physicists on, so we decided to try and build a bridge by having Philip Ball, who is both a chemist and a physicist. Because chemists feel that they're not catered for enough on this show,

I thought I would ask you a little bit about the arrogance of physicists like Brian Cox, who do now say that it's all physics, that everything else is nonsense, all science is basically physics? Well, I mean, having seen it from both sides, I know that there are physicists who are terrified of chemistry and they may not always admit that. There's banglings and things, aren't there? You have to remember things in chemistry.

You have to remember these 100-plus elements. And that's tricky for physicists because they'd like to start from first principles and work it out, but you can't really work this stuff out in chemistry, let alone biology. I mean, now it's very trendy for physicists to get into biology, and a lot of them are doing that. And some of them are doing that very well, and some of them are doing it with that kind of arrogance, that they're going to come in and, you know, explain the whole of biology. I mean, there is a noble tradition in biology of physicists coming along and, you know, solving problems. I mean, Francis Crick started as a physicist. But, you know, there is that danger that physicists just sort of go for the big picture.

And in biology, the details often are crucial to what's going on. You just can't throw them out. Now, Ben, this is a science show, so let's get back to physics and talk about quantum physics. What is it, very simply? What is quantum physics? Well, there are two theories in physics which work reliably, and one deals with the physics of very big things, which is general relativity,

and the other deals very well with the physics of very small things, and that would be quantum physics. So, I mean, if quantum physics were a better theory, it would be a description of everything, but it's not, unfortunately. It just tends to work extremely well for sizes of a few atoms and below. And most of our technology is basically built on semiconductor devices and those all require an understanding of quantum physics. But you see, Phil, that here we are again with basic physics.

That's the reason for chemistry, isn't it? Because you wouldn't have atomic structure without that. Yeah, no, I was just thinking. I mean, you know, quantum theory is central to the whole of chemistry. It's central to our understanding of why one atom joins to another and how molecules are made and how materials are made. All of it in the end central to our understanding of why one atom joins to another and how molecules are made and how materials are made. All of it, in the end,

has to be described by quantum theory. That's the only way you can get an adequate description of what's going on. So not only is it central to, you know, all of these technological devices that we have, but it's really central to just the whole of how matter is built and how it behaves. So the whole world, Robin.

The whole world. Well, anyway, the whole world. Well, anyway, welcome back, those of you listening ready for it, to a show called Why Physicists Are Really Best, presented predominantly by Brian Cox. Now, Ben, you've been talking very authoritatively about quantum physics, but we also sent you out to discover something which many people, I don't even know whether pseudoscience would be the correct term,

but you have a certain, just an interest in the world of astrology. I had an immense interest in getting my horoscope read. I don't know if that's quite the same. I mean, I'm a passionate believer in science. But I'm also well up for Buddhism, astrology, Reiki. Whatever you've got, really. Feng Shui. Feng Shui. I find them absolutely fascinating.

I could go some way, actually, to making an argument for why astrology is really just a belief system in the same way that science is or physics is. And therefore you went off and you saw Jonathan Kaner. No less. Yeah, who lives in the most purple room I have ever seen. He didn't have a cape, but I wouldn't have been at all surprised if there was one hanging on the back of the door there.

OK, so I'm going to put in Ben Miller and your date of birth. 24th of the 2nd, 66. And that you were born, you think, around 5.40 in the morning. Yeah. Therefore, you are a Piscean, which is the thing you know about yourself already. Yeah. And you've got Neptune close to your south node,

interestingly enough, which, according to ancient tradition, means that you have issues with your imagination, whereby you must have an amazing ability to imagine the worst, I would have thought. I did think you maybe weren't going to turn up when we were waiting outside your flat. The next thing that we see here is that there is Venus bang on the ascent,

in other words, Venus on the horizon, and that's considered very fortuitous. You are seen by the world as somebody who is very creative, very artistic, perhaps musical, as somebody who is very creative, very artistic, perhaps musical. And so to have Venus on the horizon is considered an auspicious placement for Venus, although I notice that it's unaspected, which also implies that you may have spent a fair degree of your life wondering which particular area in which to best invest your talents. Well, it's funny you should say that. That's why I'm on this programme.

talents. Well, it's funny you should say that. That's why I'm on this programme. Well, you are what could best be described as a multiple Piscean, which is not a crime, but it's worth bearing in mind that Pisces gets a bad rap in astrology. It's generally associated with a kind of vague, airy-fairy, woolly attitude to life and a tendency to be very poetic and very dreamy and not very organised. But in fact, what Pisceans are is magnificently intuitive. They don't need to be ruthlessly analytical because they instinctively find the right things to do or say even if they have no idea why they did or said them. Apparently, three of us on the programme,

in fact, Brian, Robin and myself, are all Piscean. So I don't know what that says about this programme. It says you're in good company. Einstein was a Piscean and he apparently intuited his way towards many of the great conclusions that he reached and the understandings that he came to. People often say that Pisces isn't supposed to be a very scientific sign,

it's supposed to be a very dreamy, artistic sign, and perhaps you might argue that all three of you have wandered into science as an area of interest if only because being so naturally gifted with an airy, fairy and easygoing look at the world, it's a natural mechanism to want to compensate by being earthed by a world full of rules, regulations and laws of things which have to be proven before they can be accepted. But given that personality is so complex, if you like, what influence could the position of a planet have on personality?

There are all kinds of explanations, in inverted commas, as to how astrology might work, and I don't personally buy into any of them. I don't believe there are invisible strings, etheric bodies, or subtle magnetic pools which science has yet to discover a way to measure or monitor. I think the whole thing is much more to do with, for want of a better word, coincidence, a kind of rather glorious coincidence. There is a clock in the heavens, a very complicated one with lots of hands, and I don't believe it's got anything to do with cause and effect. I think it's reflection. It's just a question of saying, oh, look, it's five o'clock, and in most people's

lives, therefore, it's time to get out the office and start heading for home, or it's 9am, time to start. And in a similar sort of way, the sky reflects a kind of mood which people feel on the earth. Jonathan, it's been absolutely fascinating talking to you, and I'm going to go and buy some purple cushions, because I just love the look of this room. Ben, you went in there with quite an open mind, but were there any moments where you were actually surprised

by anything that Jonathan said to you? Well, you know, I think he's a tremendously perceptive man. And I think you've got to think about what the purposes of these things are. And I think that astrology has a role to play in a society where we don't understand ourselves particularly well. You create this whole framework where people can kind of be a bit self-indulgent, but also think a little bit about our psyche and how it's put together. Phil, you've written about astrology or certainly the emergence of astronomy from astrology. I suppose what Ben said there about it coming from a society that doesn't really understand the natural world, that was true initially for astrology with its origins, what, back many thousands of years.

I would argue it isn't true today. We know very well how the universe works. But can you describe how it originated? Maybe first of all, I'd say that if you take seriously how it originated and the fact that it has a place in the history of ideas, I think it then makes it very difficult to take it seriously today. Because if you think about how it was perpetuated in the Middle Ages, that was a very hierarchical society. And the idea that there was this sort of natural hierarchy in nature whereby the heavens governed what happened on the earth was just a natural way of thinking. At that time, there was a lot, there was a mystery. I mean, you know, more than there is today. And there was also a much more dangerous, much more hazardous world that people lived in. And astrology could give them some sense of having some control.

Also, it's such a sort of vague system, and there are so many different interpretations of it, that it's actually one that's very hard to disprove. But I suppose people haven't changed that much. I mean, this is what you were saying, I think, Ben, about the attraction of it today. It's the true of all those sort of, you know, Reiki, homeopathy. I think, you know, they have a use, you know, they have a most definite use but I would say that their use is in providing a solution, because science doesn't really provide answers, science is just question

upon question upon question, and I think what's so satisfying to people is certainty But I would say whilst astrology is a relatively, I would say a relatively harmless version of pseudoscientific certainty, many psesciences, particularly in the medical field, are not harmless. And for me, what bothers me about astrology is

that it's part of a slippery slope of irrationality, I would say. Well, I disagree, because I think, I mean, what we're really talking about here is the placebo effect, isn't it, basically? Because after seeing jonathan i felt better i felt like something had been made sense of the the thing that's really powerful about the placebo effect is it works whether or not you believe in it i mean they've done you know they've done scientific tests for example with uh placebo and it doesn't matter whether you're told it's a placebo or not, it still works. So you're not at risk of people suffering because they don't understand the science. Actually, it's inbuilt into us as human beings

to benefit from the placebo effect, whether we know it's a placebo or not. Phil, you're frowning through pretty much all of that. So is it harmless fun that maybe has a mild placebo effect to make you feel better? Or is there something more problematic for our scientific culture? I think there are elements of both of those things. I do have sympathy with the notion that for some people,

if it makes them feel better in the way that it made Ben feel better, you can understand why people would go to it. But I also have a lot of sympathy for the concern that it blurs the boundaries between what is correct and what is incorrect, between false beliefs in the way the world works and ones that we have some evidence for. In that case, let me get philosophical on your ass. Go on, Ben.

What Jonathan Caner's doing is placing a blind faith in a sort of black box. Astrology is a black box. He doesn't know how it works. He doesn't know how the positions of the stars in the heavens affect people's personality, but he believes there's a connection, and if you give him a map of the sky, he'll tell you what effect that has on your personality. What are we doing in science

other than taking a black box of mathematics and saying, I believe the universe can be described by mathematics. I don't know why mathematics is true. I just know that it works. I just know that if I formulate a string theory, despite whether there's any evidence for it or against it, I know because it's a beautiful mathematical theory and I believe in mathematics.

I think this is entirely false. This whole argument is absolutely baseless. What I would say... I'm sorry. But what I would say is that mathematics is a modelling tool, primarily. So primarily the way that science proceeds is you observe the world, you make models of that world, and mathematics is a useful tool for doing that. You can predict different behaviour, you can go and look for them.

So the experimental method combined with mathematical models has given us the 21st century world that we see today. Then you've fallen right into my trap, because that's exactly what Jonathan Kaner is doing with astrology. He's using it as a modelling tool. No, because there's no predicting how. The point is, surely, that if you take physical theory such as quantum theory and you say, I'm using mathematics as a modelling tool,

what you're admitting is this isn't true in the philosophical sense of quantum mechanics isn't true in that there's not a one-to-one correspondence between my mental idea of quantum mechanics and how the world behaves. Quantum mechanics is a model. It has a relative scientific truth, and we will hold to it for as long as it's borne up by experiment.

I mean, that's the only real difference, I think, between Jonathan Caner and Brian Cox. Phil. We're going to leave it there. We're going to leave. No, no, no, Brian. That's where we have to leave it. Phil must have a word.

Please let me out. I want it to end on Brian Cox and Jonathan Caner hand in hand. We will leave Brian Cox briefly to simmer and be full of fury, which again was interestingly predicted by Jonathan Caner. So there we are. Maybe he knew this was going to happen. Phil's simmering as well. Phil's simmering, but he's not simmering with the same kind of effect.

There's not quite the same amount of righteous ire bubbling under the eyes. We're going to move away from astrology and move on to something that Brian will enjoy talking about. It's CERN, the place where he works, and the place where he eats his lunch in a clumsy manner, sometimes slowing down the system. The place he works. When are you ever there?

Presenting TV shows. The last time I was there, Ben, was probably with you. Yeah. Have you been following the progress of the large-scale... Yeah, I was so excited. I mean, it was very, very exciting. I mean, they got the two beams going around the track a couple of weeks back.

That was fantastic, wasn't it? Yeah. Well, the LHC is the largest scientific experiment ever attempted. 27 kilometres into conference, it sits below the surface of Geneva. We accelerate protons to, well, 99.99999% the speed of light. They go around the ring 11,000 times a second and will collide up to 600 million times a second when the LHC is at full luminosity,

thereby recreating the conditions that were present less than a billionth of a second after the Big Bang and allowing us to learn more about the structure of the universe and the forces that make it work. Have you said that before, Brian? Ben! Yes. I mean, when we visited CERN, what did you think of the place? This was last year before the accident, which has now been fixed.

I've never seen a place that looks more disappointing on the surface. I mean, it basically looks like a sort of disused French farm, as if you're sort of very disappointing-looking corrugated iron buildings and a bit of rubbish blowing about. And then you get beneath the surface, you know, you go down these incredible... ..these incredible high-tech lift shafts down into this incredible sort of James Bond supervillain. Just the most extraordinarily large, impressive bit of equipment.

It's like a cathedral to science. It's just the size of it is absolutely breathtaking. Philip, were you surprised at all at the amount this captured the public imagination? Because as someone who tries to popularise science, it was last year, maybe it was the idea of the end of the world, maybe it was just the hope it was a new Dan Brown plot, but it was across the newspapers in a way that that

kind of serious science isn't normally. It was great to see that, without a doubt. I don't know whether I was surprised. I mean, you know, clearly they have a lot to sell. I mean, the scale of the operation, the kind of questions that they're asking. And no, I think it was

fantastic that it had that sort of coverage. I have to say Black Holes and The End of the World in the end played a large part in that interest as well, but maybe that's just part and parcel. Maybe we just have to accept that that's going to be a way in for some people. Well, you know what annoys me, because I do go to Geneva occasionally, is that I have to go all that way across Europe to the Alps to use a fossil accelerator, but those pros from Dover have been tinkering around with one of their very own. I came as soon as I could, Maurice. What is

it? What's happened? Desmond, you may know of my work concerning Higgs boson. The hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the standard model of particle physics? Precisely. No? Well, in order to observe this phenomenon, I have built my own rudimentary hadron collider. My God! But a machine built to achieve particle acceleration on that scale

would cost some... $8.3 billion. I see. So I don't suppose you've got that fibre, are you? I'm afraid not. When do you intend to test it? Well, that's rather it, you see. Last night I was working late in the laboratory and...

You activated the particle accelerator? Yes, and something happened. What? $8.3 billion. I see. So I don't suppose you've got that fibre... I've torn apart the very fabric of time. My God, you mean...

Yes, you and I are now trapped in... When do you intend to test it? Well, that's rather it, you see. Late last night I I was working on... Maybe a solution. Go on. Theoretically, it made it possible to cause this loop in time, which you've created, to decay exponentially.

To the point where it's simply absorbed into the original timeline. Precisely. There's not a moment to lose. I'll power up the hadron... As soon as I could, Morris. What is it? What's happened? Desmond, you may know of my work concerning Higgs boson.

The hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by... Welcome to another infinite... Moment to lose. I'll power up the Hadron Collider. Good man, but listen carefully. We must ensure that... Otherwise, you and I may be responsible for the annihilation of the entire... Complete success! Well, it was a close-run thing, but I think we can safely say that the timeline has been restored. Congratulations all round. Hip-hip, hooray! Hip-hip, hooray! Came as soon as I could, Morris. What is it? What's happened?

Desmond, you may know of my work concerning Higgs boson. The hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by Peter Andre. Oh, I love a fade in a sketch. Ben, when you went out there, and this was just before the whole thing was starting up, the experiment was about to begin, what was your level of disappointment when everyone was going, it's going to happen, it's going to...

Oh, it's gone wrong, we need to do more soldering. Do you know, in all honesty, my level of disappointment was zero. Because, you know, the thing you've got to understand about the LHC is this is like engineering at the absolute, you know, forefront of human understanding. It would be absolutely extraordinary if a machine like that just worked straight out of the box. It just doesn't happen.

In this area of experiment... Have you ever done an experiment at school? When did they ever work? You have to hone it and work at it and understand... The major task of any experiment to begin with is something they call calibration. It's just simply understanding the machine and making sure it's working like you think it should work.

Well, because of that very positive note that you've actually brought, I think there is almost a chance for a treat. And as both we suggested and Jonathan Kane have predicted in your astrological chart today, Ben Miller, in the Daily Mail, there is a little bit of a surprise coming your way. Now, do you recognise this voice? Ben, something seems to have gone wrong with the office work. Nobody has a copy of your PhD thesis.

You haven't spoke to him in nearly 20 years, but he's here to demand your PhD finally. Your former supervisor, Emeritus Professor of Physics at Cambridge and the Pender Chair of Nanoelectronics at University College London, Professor Sir Michael Pepper. Has anything that I've said in this programme been true

or accurate in any way? All true, Ben. Absolutely. You're a great communicator. You're not going to mark me on it. Professor Pepper, what was Ben like as a student? Elusive. Very good. We all enjoyed Ben, actually. We were very disappointed when he left,

but we all followed his career. It's very good. Very good to see, actually. So a lot of people, when they do their PhDs, they go off into the finance industry, they do risk analysis, derivatives, all that sort of thing, and they end up making people very unhappy. Ben makes them happy, doesn't he? So it must be a good thing. Do you think there's any chance that he could actually come back and finish his thesis?

Well, I mean, it has moved on. I'm sure he could do a very good thesis. But it's probably best he stays as the great communicator, really. I think that's probably better, actually, than being locked away in a lab for a while. You missed a second career as a diplomat, Mike. Professor Sir Michael Pepper, thank you very much for joining us. That's all we've got time for this week. Thank you very much, Ben Miller, Philip Ball and Professor Sir Michael Pepper.

Next week we'll be decorating our monkey cage with an infinite amount of tinsel and donning our cassocks with the Dean of Guildford Victor Stock and comedian Chris Addison for a Christmas special which is the same show but with a well it's just nearer to the 25th of December there's no difference Are they really going to put this out on Radio 4?

If you've enjoyed this programme you might like to try other Radio 4 podcasts from Friday night comedy and daily drama from the archers, to a range of news, discussions and documentaries. For a full list of available podcasts, visit bbc.co.uk slash radio4. In our new podcast, Nature Answers, rural stories from a changing planet. We are traveling with you to Uganda and Ghana to meet the people on

the front lines of climate change. We will share stories of how they are thriving using lessons learned from nature. And good news, it is working. Learn more by listening to Nature Answers wherever you get your podcasts.