Mind-bending mysteries at the Perimeter Institute

WELLS: What the big thinkers know, what they’re trying to learn, and how close we may be to a genuine revolution

by Paul Wells on Friday, September 17, 2010 9:00am - 0 Comments

PHOTOGRAPHY BY COLE GARSIDE/ ANDREW TOLSON

Not even the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ont., is immune to the rhythms of the seasons. Summer there this year was quiet and casual, with several regular faces away on vacation. And yet there were plenty of signs that the little think tank is heading into an ambitious new era.

Stephen Hawking was on a six-week working visit from Cambridge, England. Every day you could see a caregiver pushing his wheelchair along the footpaths outside the building at surprising speed. The most famous scientist in the world does not like to dawdle. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis has left him no control over most of his body. Twitching a cheek muscle to compose even a short sentence with his speech synthesizer can take 20 minutes. So he is keenly aware of wasted time. “I encouraged lots of people to go and talk to him,” Neil Turok, Perimeter’s South African director and a Hawking friend and colleague of long standing, told me.

“A lot of people did. Several of them came away saying, ‘I went and explained to him what I’m doing—and he didn’t seem very interested!’ I entirely sympathize with him. He has very high standards and if you start telling him something that doesn’t sound plausible he’ll very quickly tell you, ‘I’ve had enough.’ ”

Leonard Susskind, a white-bearded and soft-spoken Stanford University prof, was on a similar extended visit. Susskind has no human story of physical courage to match Hawking’s, but to physicists he is in Hawking’s intellectual class. He is a pioneer in the surreal but influential field of string theory, which describes a universe made of tiny vibrating strings curled up across many more dimensions than the three we know. Hawking and Susskind are two of Perimeter’s 20 Distinguished Research Chairs, eminent international theorists who visit Waterloo occasionally to work without the distractions of home.

Susskind spent much of his time in the third-floor lounge surrounded by groups of young scientists still in graduate school or fresh out. They would show Susskind their work, neat lines of equations on notepaper or hectic scrawls on the lounge’s blackboard. (Perimeter has hundreds of blackboards, in every office, conference room and coffee nook. They all get a lot of use.) Susskind’s questions would make his young visitors stare at the paper or blackboard for long minutes, as if hoping an answer would appear.

The day I arrived, the inaugural class of Perimeter Scholars International (PSI), an intensive master’s-level course in theoretical physics for students from around the world, held their convocation after a year’s intensive study. One of the most impressive was Bruno Le Floch, a 20-year-old ponytailed Frenchman who was one of the younger students in his class. “He’s just a genius,” Turok said. But he is also just a kid. So rather than dive into a theory career, Le Floch will spend the next year teaching in Cape Town at the African Institute for Mathematical Studies, which Turok founded in hopes of giving Africa’s best students a reason to stay at home and lead the continent’s intellectual development.

One day Stephen Harper visited Perimeter to announce a $20-million federal investment in Turok’s African initiative. One rarely has to wait long at Perimeter before somebody comes along with a gift of money. Often the visitor is a local boy who made good, Mike Lazaridis, the founder and co-CEO of Research in Motion.

Years ago, Lazaridis decided to put much of his fortune into an institute that would study the questions that fascinated him when he was a University of Waterloo engineering student. On one hand, Einstein’s theories of space, time and gravity. On the other, the odd but powerful insights of quantum mechanics. In 2000, with $100 million from Lazaridis and $20 million from two other RIM partners, the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics set up shop in the old post office building on King Street.

Since then it has grown steadily. In 2004, Perimeter moved into a slate-black 6,000-sq.-m building on the shore of Silver Lake in Waterloo Park. Already this summer, work crews were building an extension that will nearly double the institute’s floor space. Its faculty size will triple.

(Current full-time faculty is only 11, but if you add faculty it shares with area universities, visiting scholars, post-docs and graduate students, there are about 100 people thinking in the building on an ordinary day, and often about as many stopping through for a conference or seminar.) Enrolment at Perimeter Scholars International will double. The Distinguished Research Chairs will grow in number to 30.

But what do the people at Perimeter actually do? Many assume the institute must be the research and development branch of Research in Motion. This is not even remotely true. There are no laboratories at Perimeter. It has no equipment for manufacturing anything. There is very little in the sleek four-storey building except boxes of chalk and an excellent bistro.

But establishing what the Perimeter theorists don’t do is easier than explaining what they do.

Even they have learned to leave it vague. “When the neighbours ask, I say I just want to understand why the universe works the way it does,” said Chris Fuchs, a tremendously engaging Texan who has been a visiting scholar at Perimeter since 2007. “And that’s when they usually say, ‘Isn’t it great that Stephen Hawking’s there?’ And I say, ‘Yeah, it is.’ ”

What Perimeter’s theorists do is think, singly and in groups. Sometimes they scribble equations on the chalkboards to enlist colleagues and visitors in their attempts to solve some new or nagging riddle. Once I passed Fuchs’s office on my way to the third-floor pop machine. He was staring intently, slack-jawed, at the chalkboard that makes up one wall of his office. When I returned 20 minutes later he had not moved.

What they think about, from assorted conceptual angles that make up the subdisciplines of modern theoretical physics, are ways to refine, extend and, ideally, reconcile the two great early 20th-century advances in physics—general relativity and quantum mechanics. Relativity refers to Albert Einstein’s realization that space and time are aspects of the same thing, as are matter and energy. Einstein described how massive bodies like stars warp the space-time around them, bending the fabric of existence in a way we experience as gravity.

Quantum mechanics is the product of research into the behaviour of the component parts of atoms by Einstein’s contemporaries—Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger and others. What they found is so odd it still puzzles physicists. A particle can sometimes be in one place and, in a way, somewhere else at the same time. Observing a particle to find out where it is destroys any chance of knowing for sure where it’s going. Two particles can become “entangled” so that a change to one particle will be reflected in a change to the other, no matter how distant.

In nearly a century of investigation, researchers have made great use of these odd insights.
Electronics depends on the quantum behaviour of electrons moving through semiconductors.
The same phenomena drive lasers, DVD players, computers, electron microscopes. The Nobel-winning physicist Leon Lederman has said that quantum mechanics is responsible for one-third of U.S. GDP.

Bookmark and Share
  • bepele

    They decry the relidion of belief in God or gods, yet they worship the religion of technology. I wonder which benefits mankind the most.

    • Mark

      Given the choice between engaging in a rational and skeptical examination of the world around us or taking the word of a bunch of illiterate bronze-age goatherds who heard voices in their heads telling them to kill people, does anyone really think we're better off believing in the latter?

    • Emily

      Oh well, that's easy.

      Science flies you to the moon.

      Religion flies you into buildings.

      • Keith in Brampton

        OK; that made me laugh!

    • austinso

      there are those who think that science reveals "God"…

      • Mark

        Einstein being perhaps the most famous. I've always liked this essay:
        http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/einstein_reli…

        • Emily

          Einstein was an atheist.

          • Phil_King

            In the sense that he derides the notion of an anthropomorphic god perhaps, but it seems to me, based on many of his quotes, that he was much more agnostic than anyone on either side of the atheist/theist false dichotomy is willing to admit.

          • Emily

            From a correspondence between Ensign Guy H. Raner and Albert Einstein in 1945 and 1949. Einstein responds to the accusation that he was converted by a Jesuit priest: "I have never talked to a Jesuit prest in my life. I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one.You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from religious indoctrination received in youth." Freethought Today, November 2004

            "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in Albert Einstein: The

          • Phil_King

            I'm not sure in what spirit you've posted the quotes, but I'm going to take it as agreement.

            I don't believe in a "personal god" either, but I also don't share the existential non-belief of atheists and their typically materialistic perspective, so I tend to call myself agnostic. Unsurprisingly then I tend to view Einstein's many quotes from this perspective, including that above. I guess that could be a confirmation bias or schema on my part but I don't think so.

            Look at the universe we live in. Most of us agree that it likely started from one source or point, from which we have a universe replete with trillions upon trillions of star systems. From the barren rock of planets formed from this star matter has arisen conscious life that can reflect upon all of it.

            Okay so we don't agree on whether the universe arose as a result of conscious manipulation, or whether there is a collective unifying consciousness on some level, but really, aren't we getting a little caught up on the details given it's one of those points we can't really test? LOL

          • Emily

            Agnostics are just people who can't make up their minds. Like mugwumps. LOL

            Hawking said recently that the universe can and does exist without the need for a creator to either make it or keep it running.

            We haven't begun to look into it enough to know details, but we will.

          • Phil_King

            From my perspective agnostics are the only ones being honest about the state of our knowledge. LOL :P

            Hawking can say what he likes, but until we have a falsifiable cosmology that can successfully close the loop we can't even come close to knowing whether the universe has it's own collective consciousness element.

            In fact, I would argue that until we understand the source of our own consciousness, investigating the possibility of other forms of consciousness is simply out of reach.

          • Jenn_

            Also, just because we don't need a God here on earth doesn't mean we don't have a God running the Universe.

            But I'm agnostic with you. I like this 'personal God' thing you guys are talking about. I hadn't heard that before, but it absolutely says what I've been nebulously thinking for a long time.

          • Emily

            Then may the Force be with you. LOL

          • Emily

            Yes, you have some free time yet to indulge in religion, although I'm sure even after that people will find other excuses for doing so..

            Goodness knows they are certainly trying to do that with evolution. LOL

            But simply saying understanding is 'out of reach' is definitely not on.

            Because that's what cave people said about the origin of thunder and lightning.

          • Phil_King

            "…But simply saying understanding is 'out of reach' is definitely not on. Because that's what cave people said about the origin of thunder and lightning…"

            Except of course that you've missed my point.

            I said: "until we understand the source of our own consciousness, investigating the possibility of other forms of consciousness is simply out of reach…"

            This is a perfectly true point. It's similar to saying that until we cracked the atom, nuclear generator's were simply out of reach, which is hardly deniable.

            So again, it is impossible to investigate the existence of extended or universal consciousness while we still don't understand the root of our own consciousness.

            That is not to say we are without theories however, or that we have failed to make progress in our understanding of our own consciousness. The theory of quantum consciousenss for example seems to be the leading contender at the moment, and if true, then the basic experiencial qualities of consciousness arise at the Planck level.
            http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~sreinis/quantum.html

          • austinso

            And of course, we all know that Hawkings is God…;)…

            I would suggest to you to consider the theology that underpins Judaism, Christianity (Catholicism more precisely) and Islam about the essence of "God" as argued for millenia, rather than the sunday school notion of God with the white flowing beard that you are arguing against, just as "…the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from religious indoctrination received in youth…".

          • Emily

            No, Hawkings is just a man.

            And 'God' is just a fairy tale.

          • austinso

            A "prophet", then – an epithet applied by those who follow the "religion" of atheism.

            "God" a "fairy tale"? Perhaps…but probably no more than the belief that the complexity of the universe can be reduced to a series of dynamical equations, though the search is noble enough.

            BTW…have you ever heard of Asimov's short story entitled "the last question"?

          • Emily

            Atheism isn't a belief…it's the lack of a belief…there is no religion involved.

            All math is adjective…it does not change the subject.

            Yes, I'm sure most people have read Asimov's 'last question'….however that has nothing to do with it. Asimov was also an atheist.

          • austinso

            Hmmm…a lack of belief that seeks to justify itself rather than simply let things slide…

            All math is adjective…it does not change the subject.

            Hmmm…I can't decide whether you've accidentally become clever here…

          • Keith in Brampton

            There may not be any religion involved, but there is clearly a belief. You believe that there is no God; no creator; that all this existence is an incredible confluence of math. As you can't PROVE that (yet), it's a belief.

          • Mark

            You may want to read the actual essay before commenting on it.

            Einstein was certainly an atheist, and clearly rejected the existence of any deity that acts as a creator or source of morality. At the same time, he was also a very deeply spiritual person, describing what he (rather unfortunately) calls the "cosmic religious feeling" that comes from attaining a deeper understanding of the universe and our place within it. He goes on to describe how science (as well as art) are crucial to attaining this feeling. In this sense, he seems close to the "nature-as-god" beliefs of philosophers like Spinoza.

          • Emily

            In his era he'd have been hounded to death for openly announcing his atheism…and I think he figured he'd been hounded enough for his other views.

            So he talked about a sense of awe and wonder for the universe and so on, and let religious people see it as they wished.

          • Mark

            I'm not disputing that he'd have been persecuted for announcing his atheism, as he almost certainly would have. I often wonder (rather pointlessly, I admit) what other great figures from history were closet atheists.

            What I do have a hard time believing is that he described that sense of awe and wonder just as a way of obfuscating his beliefs to the point where people would leave him alone. The kind of ""spirituality" he describes is actually quite common among scientists, and I see no reason to doubt that he really did think that way.

          • Emily

            There are a lot of them actually…there is even a list. With some of them it's hard to prove because they knew better than to leave papers about, or talk too openly about it.

            I have a sense of awe and wonder about the universe…it's big and beautiful, so of course we do, and it makes people feel good….you can feel that about a lot of things actually, but calling it 'spiritual' is misleading I think. Maybe it's just the only word people can come up with.

    • JoeC

      I really don't understand why people see this as a religion vs. science issue. I want to know the truth, both in my religion, and in my universe. The two are not incompatible. Science plots the points of my exterior world, religion my interior. I'm fascinated by both.

      Of course, I'm part of a tradition that doesn't mind finding out that the physical universe works differently than our scriptures say. Doesn't matter one bit to me, personally. Nothing science will find will have much of anything to do with my religious concern – soteriology. The rest of it is uninteresting to me, religiously. Scientifically, however, I find it to be fascinating!

    • KevinK

      High-energy Physics isn't really about technology nor can it hope to explain to our place in the universe. Its more like fancy bird-watching and about as useful. You learn things, but they tend to be kind of boring or over-complicated and there are too many obvious things that can never be explained (like what happened before the Big Bang). The best you can hope for is to see some exotic stuff and maybe appreciate the world a little more.

      • Phil_King

        "Before the Big Bang" is always a tricky one because technically that's a time measurement, and time didn't exist before the Big Bang according to what I've read. So on closer examination you realize that the question supposes to measure something that doesn't exist! There's nothing before time because there was no time.

        It's like asking what's north of north? Well, nothing actually, or if you really stretch it, maybe south is north of north? LOL

        So sometimes we may be asking the wrong questions, or perhaps the questions themselves aren't as meaningful as we think in the grand scheme of things, and that is one of the complications of developing coherent cosmological theories.

  • Mulletaur

    That was an excellently well written article, Wells. Thanks. It should be held up as the standard by which your journalistic colleagues explain anything to do with science.

    "That was good enough at lower energy levels when physicists were looking for confirmation of strong predictions. But nobody knows what the LHC will find, and candidate theories are lined up around the block. It will take forever to check every theory one by one. And what’s crucial is that there may be something going on that no theory predicts.

    “What we need is basic information,” Schuster said. “Not hyper-refined, detailed information.”"

    This truly is the crux of the matter, so to speak. Advances in pure science are greatly hindered by the scientific method, which for the most part builds knowledge from a previous base, much like jurisprudence. Even the observation of phenomena is restricted to measuring what one thinks important, and can measure. The science these people are doing, however, has the opportunity to make huge advances precisely because it depends less on previous knowledge. I almost regret not taking that course in quantum physics after all.

    • Steve Fortin

      'advances in pure science are greatly hindered by the scientific method' That's completely incorrect. Please research and fully understand the scientific method before you criticize it.

      • Mulletaur

        No, it is not incorrect, it is fundamental truth. I have done my research. Just saying I'm wrong doesn't cut it. If you have an argument to make, make it.

  • mark

    I thoroughly enjoyed that article in a way that I haven't had the pleasure of doing in a long time. That was Fantastic, Paul! More please! :)

  • Inkless

    True story: I had a couple of those painfully simpleminded analogies in the piece, but our excellent editor Mark Stevenson took 'em out.

    • Andrew (not PorC)

      Thanks Mark for making the world a better place!

  • JoeC

    Great article. Makes me happy to see that there are at least some efforts to recruit and keep the brightest minds here in Canada. I think your article does a really good job of underscoring why funding higher education is so important.

  • Anon Liberal

    I actually enjoyed that. Thanks PW.

  • Jenn_

    Thanks so much, Paul.

    I have no hope of seriously understanding it, but entangled particles excites me to no end! One of the other things Perimeter does is give lectures to the non-science community. They are always sold out the minute they're announced, but they have a nice library of videos from them.

    Also, I heard yesterday that the Alpha Constant may not be, constant that is, after all. And with the problems of gravity at the quantum level, what if it isn't constant, either? Can you imagine some day controlling gravity? Talk about an alternative energy source!!

    • Style

      See, this is why I'm glad physics isn't practiced by economists. "What if one day we could control gravity?" "No, the Newtonian model doesn't allow that." Whereas, with physicists, you get interesting articles on how this could work and how it couldn't. Also, you get entangled particles. And "charm".

      • Emily

        Well seeing as Newton died in 1727, he's hardly the last word on the subject. LOL

        • Style

          Ricardo wrote in 1817 and he's still the go-to guy for the economics of international trade…

          • Emily

            And you see the mess THAT has caused.

    • Phil_King

      Yeah I was reading about that in sciencedaily just the other day.

      Kind of throws the Copernican principle for a bit of a loop if true, in that it considers the universe to be homogeneous, suggesting the laws of physics should be the same everywhere, but I could be wrong. It's easy to lose sight of the nuances in scientific terminology.

      "Laws of Physics Vary Throughout the Universe, New Study Suggests" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/1009…

  • Inkless

    Thanks for the contribution. Other physicists (including from Perimeter, but really from anywhere) are encouraged to join the discussion of this piece — and comment-board regulars are urged to give them a neighbourly welcome if they do.

    • KevinK

      Its a great article, by the way. I hope I didn't sound to critical.

  • Phil_King

    Great article for sure Paul. Must've taken a lot of time and effort to put this together, and good on you for it.

    One niggling little question though. I'm just a little confused by your use of notation, ie 10¯17 cm.

    I assume that is meant to be ten to the negative seventeenth power, but it looks like 10 to the 17th power.

    In any case, wouldn't that usually written as 1X10^-17? (online that is?)

    In the age of information, why or why can't your average website show power units? LOL

    What I can't wait to see is the day when they can get close to measuring things at the Planck length. (~1.6×10^-35 meters)

    It's going to be tough to falsify M-theory without getting down to that level.

    And speaking of M-theory, I thought String Theory had been sidelined by its unification with the supergravity theory and then renamed M-theory?

    Are the M-theorists who work on the string portions of the theory really still calling themselves string theorists, or are they actively resisting the implied connection?

    • Inkless

      No, you're right, M theory is back big, but for the life of me I couldn't figure out how to explain that part.

  • Phil_King

    JoeC: "…I really don't understand why people see this as a religion vs. science issue…"

    Yeah, you and me both brother.

    Seems to me that, as you say, they're looking at different things really.

    Scientific practises are founded upon experimental verification of a universe considered as a scientific object.

    Theology views the universe in terms of the human experience of reality.

    Of course the religious literalists often get carried away, but wouldn't it be fair to say that what a lot of religious people are actually looking for is a cosmology that still retains a place for existential meaning or purpose?

    Current scientific cosmology is terribly complicated and not easily accessible to a lot of people, so the resistance to it is understandable to me, especially given the penchant of a lot of scientists to be utterly hostile to the notion of spiritualism.

    It takes two to tango!

    • JoeC

      Science is great at explaining, or at least theorizing, about physical functionality. It does a lousy job with meaning. Science minded people who understand that, in my experience, have no issues with what we might call spiritual practice (as opposed to religious teachings about the physical universe).

      However, when people try to masquerade science as a system of meaning, then they run into serious problems, not the least of which is a stunning hypocrisy: namely that they claim to base their knowledge on theories which are proven by evidence, but are perfectly content to claim absolute knowledge about matters, namely spirituality, which they know little to nothing about.

      Science and religion have no issues as long as each of them stick to what they're good at. Both of them fulfill deep seeded needs of our species – the need to get material stuff done (i.e. grow food, medicine, etc.), and for a meaningful life.

      • Emily

        Scientists have never claimed absolute knowledge on anything, much less spirituality.

        Science is also not about getting 'material stuff done'

        The 'meaning' of your life is up to you.

        • JoeC

          Good scientists don't claim that they know everything. In my experience, overly zealous atheists do, much like their overly zealous theistic cousins. Claiming with certainty that something like a creator god doesn't exist, which is the kind of thing I've heard many times, is just as foolish as claiming with certainty that one exists, IMO.

          However, you seem to have claimed absolute knowledge on the subject of the existence of god(s), and shown that you look down on agnostics (who have a much stronger, and more brave, position than atheists). Maybe you're not a scientist, so you're not counting yourself. You are, however, the type of person to which I was referring.

          Re: getting material stuff done: That's an oversimplification on my part which was an attempt to point out that science deals largely with material functionality, whether that's in manipulating it, or trying to understand it. That's just my simplistic way of filing things, and I'm sure that a scientists could give a much more eloquent summary of their sphere of knowledge.

          My larger point was that there are spheres of knowledge, and that different methodologies and approaches will yield different types of information. If experts of one sphere, whether that be religion or science, claim they have all the answers, we should seriously question their judgements, as well as their motives.

          • Emily

            No scientists… of any kind…. claim that they know everything.

            Nor do atheists.

            Everyone is an atheist you know….I just believe in one less god than you do.

            It's not my problem that you worry about lightning bolts. LOL

            People at the Perimeter Institute are not in the least concerned with 'material functionality'….nor are most others in science. Perhaps you are talking about technology…which produces things like iPads.

            Religion is a bunch of superstitious nonsense, not any 'sphere of knowledge'

          • JoeC

            "No scientists… of any kind…. claim that they know everything.

            Nor do atheists.

            Everyone is an atheist you know….I just believe in one less god than you do.

            It's not my problem that you worry about lightning bolts. LOL

            Religion is a bunch of superstitious nonsense, not any 'sphere of knowledge'"

            Do you forget what you said in the first half of a post by the time you write the second? Your ability to contradict yourself so perfectly and with such a marvellous lack of self awareness in one post is remarkable, though.

            And, for the record, I'm agnostic as the the existence of a creator god. As well, I'm pretty sure that most people worry about lightning bolts – they can cause a lot of damage!

            And re: 'material functionality': What I mean by that is that they are interested in how material things, i.e. matter and so forth, function. If that's not what they're interested in when they spend so much of their time studying what happens when small particles smash together, then I'm very confused about what it is that they're doing over there.

            "Everyone is an atheist you know….I just believe in one less god than you do. "

            First of all, that's just an inane statement which makes no sense whatsoever. Secondly, if you believe in one less deity than I do, you still believe in more than the average Canadian!

  • Crit_Reasoning

    Terrific article, Paul. I'm glad that something as amazing as the Perimeter Institute can flourish in Canada, and after reading your piece I'm more grateful than ever to Mike Lazaridis for making this happen.

  • physicsoul

    Very interesting and lots of good questions. I too, even though I'm not half as smart as you folks at the Perimeter Institute, also trying to understand the relationship between quantum physics, relativity and the real world in my blog. I do hope to see an answer to this wonderful adventure in my lifetime.

  • Kaplan

    “Nobody will accuse Perimeter of being flaky, soft, pretty much philosophy, etc. This is pretty much the opposite. And in my view, that’s a good thing. I don’t want this to be a philosophy centre. It’s got to be a real hard-core place.”

    That attitude never ceases to amaze me, but I'm even more floored that it comes from a so-called 'out-of-the-box,' path-breaking scientist. Philosophers like Will Kymlicka are really blazing a trail in terms of evidence and empirical-based philosophy, on issues that matter to Canadians, like multicultural policies, language issues, etc. But to the physicists, it's "flaky."

    Alrighty then.

    • Emily

      I doubt that's what he meant. More likely he didn't want a commune with gurus and 'spirituality'….but a place of hard science.

    • ntt

      The concept of a philosopher blazing a trail to any thing is startling to say the least.
      First off ;the nature of the "blaze" ,The debate over this could stretch out for weeks, then the conundrum of "the trail as a dimensional construct". good for months and several grant applications.
      As for as Multicult and bilingualism mattering to Canadians. For most Canadians these issues matter only in as much as a nasty rash..A nasty flaky rash .

      • Kaplan

        No one wants to have think about these issues, but whether they're popular or not, they occur, they matter and impact most everyone. Kymlicka's work also is easily applied to democratization and national security policy, so if you need something with a bit of Jack Bauer, then Will's still your guy.

  • madeyoulook

    Oof! What a fascinating and challenging read. Thank you for that. This weekend I will start from the top again and try harder to grasp more of the concepts. What is not lost is the awe you have (and passed on very well) for scientists doing what they do best. The attack on ignorance continues.

    You know what's cool? I can't think of too many general interest newsmagazines that would have dispatched such a senior columnist to "dabble" out there past the territory usually claimed by the science mags. There is a certain tolerance for writers here to "go where your head and heart lead you," and the results are fantastic.

    Bravo.

  • Dot

    I nominate this for a National Magazine Award (if I could). Well done.

  • http://stardrive.org Jack Sarfatti

    "Another, Freddy Cachazo from Venezuela, has found that complex numbers produce elegant solutions for predicting the way particles will scatter in a collider. That’s just weird. A complex number has an imaginary component, such as the square root of a negative number. It’s not at all clear why non-real numbers produce such nice predictions for real-world events."

    LOL this is hardly news. That complex numbers have been essential for quantum theory in general and scattering in particular has been known since Schrodinger wrote his equation in the mid-1920's. The real reason has been explained by Aharonov building from Wheeler-Feynman. We need complex numbers because what happens now depends both on what has happened and what will happen.

    • Dot

      I give you an imaginary thumb, squared :)

    • s_c_f

      Yes, but it remains true that "It’s not at all clear why non-real numbers produce such nice predictions for real-world events."

  • Oldguy

    This is a very well written article. I enjoyed it a great deal. Thank-you.

  • Mediabuff

    The teaching profession is a poor choice of comparison. Considering that after 10 years of experience, a 35 year old teacher (including benefits) in 2010 makes more per hour than most professions that require more education, physicists being only one among many. Market forces privilege the teaching profession financially more so than most. The opposite is true for researchers, for whom there is little demand compared to the potential supply, few barriers to entry, and for whom the labour market is a form of oligopsony.

    Engineers would have made a better comparison than teachers, having roughly similar educational requirements as teachers, at least initially, while having more affinity with physicists intellectually. The key difference is that the labour market for engineers, like physicists, is enormously more competitive than it is for teachers.

    And how does remuneration of engineers stack up against physicists? Higher for about the first 10 years, but less thereafter, with wide variation among the disciplines – something which is true for most holders of PhDs regardless of area of study. The point being, the contrast is not so stark.

    Besides, ask most non-teaching engineers and physicists if they would rather follow their intellectual interests or teach high school for a higher salary, and they would choose the former. As they should.

  • delford t louis

    excellente..seems hawkings is the nucleus of this group of scientists or possibly is collecting the brainees to father the next plato or the dalai lama but in the physics arena…heck we are all smart but just too darn lazy to get off our butts so we let others do it! right?

  • s_c_f

    Good article.

    One thing that came to mind… I wonder if the steady stream of youth that you find in a university setting, that are lacking in Perimeter, might end up being a limiting factor on their success.

    In a university you have a huge pool of youth, and these many people are filtered many times into a smaller number of individuals with the passion and the intelligence for the fields that they pursue. Eventually they find their way into the offices of the experienced researchers, through no particular plan. However, things don't work that way at Perimeter, instead they must search and recruit, and they don't have a steady influx of youthful ideas apart from the visiting scholars. In other words, they rely more on planning, and they will be gifted with fewer spontaneous surprises coming from unlikely places, which is something that is more likely to happen in a university setting, where exciting results come from unexpected people at unexpected times. Einstein himself was never recruited nor heralded, instead he made his own way into the academic world by persistence and brute force, and likely would never have been recruited by an institute like Perimeter. So I wonder if that will be a limiting factor. I guess time will tell.

    • Stewart_Smith

      Your comments are absolutely correct for our national lab system (most NRC Institutes etc). However at Perimeter, PDFs outnumber faculty by about 5 to 1. One of the pitfalls Perimeter will face is trying to hang on to the highly successful PDFs as their term expires. This would lead to the stagnation you were concerned about.

  • http://ottawamaths.spaces.live.com Arnold Guetta.

    It is for mathematicians * to review and expose Perimeter, Turok, Hawking et al. Read Hawking's list of publications, and (#32, I believe ) "An illustrated theory of everything". In Ottawa Centre, I work, record and publish * blood-stained mathematicians with neither obituary nor inquest. Paul Wells is a gullible layman, but physicists should take an interest in Canadian realities.
    Arnold Guetta mathematician * aguetta@rogers.com

  • Darden Cavalcade

    "The LHC started operating in 2008 but soon ran into significant technical problems."
    —–
    Is this happy-talk for, "It didn't work"?

    Every time a science reporter starts lacing his/her reports with "huge" and "significant" and "genius" in relation to science/scientists…be suspicious.

From Macleans