Chuck Darwin<p><a href="https://c.im/tags/Figueiredo" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Figueiredo</span></a> sensed the need for some new magic firsthand during the waning months of the pandemic. </p><p>She was struggling with a task that has challenged physicists for more than 50 years: </p><p>predicting what will happen when quantum particles collide. </p><p>In the late 1940s, it took a yearslong effort by three of the brightest minds of the post-war era <br>— Julian <a href="https://c.im/tags/Schwinger" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Schwinger</span></a>, Sin-Itiro <a href="https://c.im/tags/Tomonaga" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Tomonaga</span></a> and Richard <a href="https://c.im/tags/Feynman" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Feynman</span></a> <br>— to solve the problem for electrically charged particles. </p><p>Their eventual success would win them a Nobel Prize. </p><p>Feynman’s scheme was the most visual, so it came to dominate the way physicists think about the quantum world.</p><p>When two quantum particles come together, anything can happen. </p><p>They might merge into one, split into many, disappear or any sequence of the above. </p><p>And what will actually happen is, in some sense, a combination of all these and many other possibilities. </p><p>Feynman diagrams keep track of what might happen by stringing together lines representing particles’ trajectories through space-time. </p><p>Each diagram captures one possible sequence of subatomic events<br> and gives an equation for a number, <br>called an “amplitude,” <br>that represents the odds of that sequence taking place. </p><p>Add up enough amplitudes, physicists believe, and you get stones, buildings, trees and people. </p><p>“Almost everything in the world is a concatenation of that stuff happening over and over again,” Arkani-Hamed said. </p><p>“Just good old-fashioned things bouncing off each other.”</p><p>There’s a puzzling tension inherent in these amplitudes <br>— one that has vexed generations of quantum physicists going back to Feynman and Schwinger themselves. </p><p>One might spend hours at a chalkboard sketching Byzantine particle trajectories and evaluating fearsome formulas only to find that terms cancel out <br>and complicated expressions melt away to leave behind extremely simple answers <br>— in a classic example, <br>literally the number 1.</p><p>“The degree of effort required is tremendous,” Bourjaily said. </p><p>“And every single time, the prediction you make mocks you with its simplicity.”</p><p>Figueiredo had been wrestling with the strangeness of the situation when she attended a talk by <a href="https://c.im/tags/Arkani" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Arkani</span></a>-<a href="https://c.im/tags/Hamed" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Hamed</span></a>, <br>a leading theoretical physicist at the IAS who has spent years seeking a new way of getting the answers without Feynman diagrams. </p><p>She found her way to a series of his lectures on YouTube, in which he showed how <br>— in special cases <br>— one could jump straight to the amplitude of a certain outcome of a particle collision without worrying about how the particles moved through space.</p><p>Arkani-Hamed’s shortcuts, which involved reverse-engineering answers that satisfy certain fundamental logical requirements, <br>confirmed Figueiredo’s suspicions that alternative methods were out there. </p><p>“By asking for these very simple things you could just get the answer. </p><p>That was definitely striking,” she said.</p><p>She began to regularly make the half-hour walk from Princeton’s campus to the IAS to work with Arkani-Hamed, <br>a force of nature who runs on Diet Coke and an inexhaustible enthusiasm for physics.</p><p>Arkani-Hamed and his collaborators aspire to bring about a conceptual revolution of the sort that rocked physics in the late 1700s. </p><p>Joseph-Louis <a href="https://c.im/tags/Lagrange" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Lagrange</span></a> didn’t discover any forces or laws of nature, but every physicist knows his name. </p><p>He showed that you could predict the future without laboriously calculating actions and equal-and-opposite reactions in the style of Isaac Newton. </p><p>Instead, Lagrange learned to predict the path an object will follow by considering the energies that different paths require and identifying the easiest path. </p><p>Lagrange’s method, despite seeming like a mere mathematical convenience at the time, <br>loosened the straitjacket of Newton’s mechanistic view of the universe as a sequence of falling dominos. </p><p>Two centuries later, Lagrange’s approach provided Feynman with a more flexible framework that could accommodate the radical randomness of quantum mechanics.</p><p>Now many amplitudes researchers hope a reformulation of quantum physics will set the stage for the next physics revolution, <br>a theory of quantum gravity and the origin of space-time.</p>