Fantastic Numbers and Where to Find Them.

Prof. Antonio Padilla is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist at the University of Nottingham who has also appeared numerous times on the Numberphile Youtube series, including this incredibly popular video where he shows how the sum of all natural numbers (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + … ?) is actually -1/12. It’s ridiculous – Padilla concedes that it looks like “a bit of mathematical hocus-pocus”, but the pudding is in the proof, or something, and he points out that 1) this only works if you’re adding all of the natural numbers, which means you don’t stop at any point, and 2) this sum appears in physics, where we don’t see infinities (and if we do, it’s a problem).

Padilla describes the interplay between physics and some numbers at both extremes of the mathematical scale, both the very small and the very large, in his book Fantastic Numbers and Where to Find Them: A Journey to the Edge of Physics, an intense but mostly accessible book that runs through nine distinct numbers, from zero to a googolplex to 10-120 to infinity, and uses them to explain some key concepts or findings about the nature of everything. He waltzes through the history of math – just about every famous figure there makes an appearance at some point, which will make you realize just how many great mathematicians ended up losing their marbles – and just about always finishes up somewhere in the realm of quantum physics, whether it’s things we know or things we think we know, or occasionally things we still don’t know. There’s even a chapter on the cosmological constant, which was in the news just this past week with the revelations that dark energy isn’t as immutable as we believed, which implies that the cosmological constant is, in fact, inconstant.

When Padilla is talking physics and cosmology, at either end of the scale, he’s engaging and by and large easy to follow, other than perhaps near the end of the book when he’s introduced the panoply of particles that populate the quantum world – all the quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons that we know or think exist – where keeping any of them straight was a bit more than I could handle. It doesn’t end up mattering much to the narratives of those chapters, as Padilla’s point is the relevance of the numbers in question, although I ended up a little frustrated that I didn’t entirely know what was going on at some points.

It’s the mathy stuff where Padilla struggles to communicate in a way that a typical reader might follow, and perhaps that’s just a function of the size of the numbers he’s discussing. The chapter on the number TREE(3), which is so large that we can’t even notate it, let alone comprehend it, ultimately lost me not in its prose but in its sea of notation. TREE(3) is much larger than the number of atoms scientists believe exist in the entire universe (around 1080, itself a number that we can’t easily envision), a number so big that the universe won’t “allow” it to exist – according to the Poincaré recurrence theorem, at least, which says that the universe will “reset” before TREE(3) happens in any sense of the word. Padilla uses TREE(3) to explain that theorem and the possibility that the universe is a hologram, that we live in two dimensions and only think we perceive the third, but by the end of that chapter I didn’t understand why TREE(3) got us there in the first place. (It doesn’t help that Padilla discusses all of this several chapters before he gets into string theory, which underpins the holographic principle, so we’re walking without a net for a while.)

Padilla is a gifted communicator, clearly, and his enthusiasm for the subject comes through everywhere in the book – it’s just that the topic itself is abstruse and assumes some familiarity with physics and/or with some branches of math like infinite series and set theory. He’s better at explaining concepts like particle spin, which he points out isn’t spin like what we’re talking about in baseball but an innate characteristic of a particle (any more than red or green quarks have those actual colors), than at explaining concepts like the nested powers of TREE(3) or Gödel’s incompleteness proof. It all left me with the sense that I’d enjoyed the book, but that the audience for it might be very narrow – you have to know enough to follow him through his various rambles through math and physics, but not so much that you already know all of this stuff. I was at least lucky enough to mostly be in the first camp, even though I got lost a few times, but that’s just because I love these topics and have read a lot of books about them. It’s not the physics I learned in high school, and not really the math I learned there either.

Next up: Michael Swanwick’s Stations of the Tide, winner of the 1991 Nebula Award for Best Novel.

Comments

  1. Keith,

    Thank you for posting this. I knew I was ordering it the moment I saw the title of your post and the picture of the cover. Your write-up just makes me more eager. I hope it arrives sooner rather than later.

    I remember trying to wrap my head around the -1/12 sum and trying to comprehend absurdly large numbers such as Graham’s number. I mean, whatever astronomical [ Not really a fitting word given what your post says about TREE(3) ] number we come up with, we can always raise that number to its own power, that many times, etc.

    Anyway, it all sounds fascinating. I have a bookshelf of books on math and cosmology. It’s an endlessly fascinating subject to me.

  2. Further reading on TREE(3)

    https://www.iflscience.com/tree3-is-a-number-which-is-impossible-to-contain-68273

    How big is TREE(3)?
    “I can’t express how really big it is,” Padilla says. “It’s off the scale big […] if you had Graham’s number of people and you said to them each, you know, just picture an equal amount of TREE(3), all of them would have their heads collapse into a black hole!”

    If that sounds like hyperbole, believe us: it isn’t. It is physically impossible to contain all the digits of TREE(3) inside your brain – there’s a maximum amount of entropy that can be stored in our heads, and it’s way, way, way less than the information needed to contain TREE(3) would take up.

    So, is there another way to envision the size of this massive number? Perhaps a comparison like we have with Graham’s number, which has more digits in it than there are Planck volumes in the universe?

    Well, even here, there’s a problem. TREE(3) is so mind-meltingly big that not only can we not come up with a satisfactory comparison for how much time or space it would take to write out, but we don’t even know how many digits it has in total.

    _____________

    So, basically, TREE(3) is so big, it makes Graham’s number look like zero. That’s … incomprehensible. Graham’s number itself it incomprehensible. So, how about TREE(Graham’s Number) ? Can I even write that without creating a universe-ending event?

  3. Another interesting tidbit:

    “Ohio State mathematician Harvey Friedman, a pioneer in the super-abstract field now known as reverse mathematics, worked out that just the number of symbols needed to prove the finiteness of TREE(3) using finite arithmetic is at least 2??1000.”

    At least 2??1000 SYMBOLS in the proof !! My brain is going to melt. I had plans today, now I’ll be reading number theory all day.

  4. Come on, people !

    The depressing bad news in the “stick to baseball” posts get tons of comments, mostly people arguing or lamenting how bad things are.

    Here, a fun and interesting topic gets posted about, and …. crickets. Silence.

  5. A Salty Scientist

    I mean, it’s convinced me to check out the book. But I don’t have anything intelligent or new to add to the conversation. But it’s not lack of interest.

  6. I try not to let my lack of anything new or intelligent to add stop me from posting. Otherwise, I would never post.

    🙂

    (I hope some of what I posted is at least interesting, even if it is not new or intelligent.)

Speak Your Mind

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.