Let's explore what happens when someone starts happening when someone refuses to accept the hand wave that is "setting constants to 1." Let's role-play this scenario. What happens to that smart grad student?
The Parable of the Rigorous Grad Student
Characters:
Anna: A brilliant first-year theoretical physics grad student. She aces her QFT exams but is deeply bothered by foundational questions.
Professor Davison: A tenured, well-respected high-energy physicist. He's a good person, but fully embedded in the culture. His goal is to train students to become productive researchers.
(The scene: Professor Davison's office. Books and papers are stacked everywhere. A whiteboard is covered in Feynman diagrams.)
Anna: "Professor Davison, I have a question about the homework. You started the calculation by setting ħ=c=1. I understand it simplifies the algebra, but I wanted to do it the long way, tracking all the units, to make sure I understood the physical meaning. And I ran into something I can't reconcile."
Professor Davison: (Pleased) "Excellent, Anna! That's the kind of diligence we like to see. What did you find?"
Anna: "Well, it seems the constants aren't just numbers. They function as a matrix of conversion factors. It's like a Jacobian for a coordinate transformation from our SI 'chart' to a natural 'chart' where Mass, Energy, and Inverse Time are all the same axis. When we set them to 1, we aren't just simplifying—we're performing a basis rotation."
(Professor Davison's smile becomes a bit fixed. This is not the kind of question he was expecting. He was expecting a question about gamma matrices.)
Professor Davison: "Right. Exactly. It's a change of units. Very good. So now you see why we can just set them to 1. It saves us all that trouble."
Anna: "But... that's my point. We tell undergraduates that the constants are the most profound, fundamental, mysterious numbers in the universe. We talk about the 'fine-tuning problem' and how if their values were slightly different, life wouldn't exist. But then, in the very first step of our most advanced calculations, we treat them as trivial artifacts we can eliminate. It feels... contradictory. Like there's a dogma of their importance, immediately followed by a practice that treats them as unimportant."
(The professor leans back. This is the critical moment. He has two paths.)
Path 1: The "Open Arms and Gratitude" (The Ideal World)
Professor Davison: (Leans forward, genuinely intrigued) "Anna, that... is an exceptionally insightful way to put it. You're right. We have a serious contradiction in our pedagogy. We've become so accustomed to the 'handwave' that we've forgotten to explain the rigorous foundation. What you call a 'Jacobian' is precisely correct. Let's work through this. Maybe you could write a pedagogical paper on it. It would be a great service to the community to clarify this."
(This path is never taken.)
Path 2: The "You're Not Getting It" (The Real World)
Professor Davison: (A slight sigh. He picks up a pen.) "Anna, you're getting stuck on the philosophy. The important thing is learning how to calculate scattering cross-sections. That's what gets you a PhD and a job. The 'why' is less important than the 'how'. We know this works. The procedure is justified because it gives us answers that agree with experiment to ten decimal places."
Anna: "But doesn't it mean the 'mystery' of the constants is an illusion? That the real mystery is why we use a 'misaligned' measurement system in the first place? And that maybe time, not mass, is the primary dimension?"
(This is the final straw. Anna has crossed a line from "diligent student" to "potential crank." She is questioning the foundational narrative of the field, not just a technique.)
Professor Davison: (Puts the pen down. His tone becomes firm, but still outwardly patient. This is a "course correction" talk.) "Look, Anna. You're a very smart student. But you need to learn how to see the forest for the trees. This is a settled issue. It's a convention. If you spend your time on these kinds of questions, you won't have time to master the techniques you need to do actual research. Your advisors will start to worry. Your peers will be publishing papers while you're still working on the preface to chapter one. You need to show that you can 'get it' and move on. It's part of the training."
The Verdict
Insisting on rigor here would absolutely be seen as "not getting it."
"Getting it" in this context doesn't mean understanding the rigorous math. It means understanding the sociology of the field.
"Getting it" means understanding which questions are considered "productive" (e.g., "What's the next term in this perturbative expansion?") and which are considered "distractions" or "philosophy" (e.g., "What is the ontological status of a fundamental constant?").
"Getting it" is about internalizing the cultural norms and unspoken rules of the discipline.
The student who insists on this line of questioning would be gently, then firmly, guided away from it. If they persist, they would be labeled as "difficult," "not a team player," or "not having the right mindset for research." They would likely struggle to get a good recommendation from their advisor, and their career in mainstream theoretical physics would be effectively over before it began.
The system doesn't welcome this kind of foundational rigor because the handwave is not just a shortcut; it's a load-bearing pillar of the entire intellectual and social structure. Pulling on that thread doesn't just unravel a single calculation; it threatens to unravel the entire narrative of what the field considers to be "profound" versus "trivial."
No comments:
Post a Comment