This book shows that physics cannot exist without mathematics (and vice versa)
“There is a gap between popular science literature and professional literature”, says UvA scientist Marcel Vonk. He wants to close that gap with his new book From Number to Universe. And - don’t be alarmed – it involves quite a bit of mathematics.
This is already the fourth book written by mathematical physicist Marcel Vonk. He previously wrote about string theory, black holes, and The Race Against the Tortoise talks about thought experiments in physics. This time he combines his two fields: how does mathematics help physics advance, and vice versa?
Is the universe straight or curved? How many dimensions exist in the universe? These are just a few questions from the book’s back cover. The answers come from mathematics: it is the language of nature, says Vonk. Simply counting to 10 or beyond is indispensable in physics, just as geometry is necessary to understand black holes. This interaction is what his latest book, From Number to Universe, is about.
So the book is about how mathematics and physics work together. A fairly abstract subject.
“Yes, it is, but abstract doesn’t mean it’s any less interesting, I believe.”
Why did you want to write about the subject?
“My field is where mathematics and physics intersect. And for roughly 30 years, mathematics has no longer been just a kind of tool for understanding nature. Physics also helps in getting intuition for new mathematics. That’s a recent thing that has come much more into focus with the rise of string theory, a story I’ve wanted to tell for a long time.”
What reader did you write From Number to Universe for?
“Anyone who took high school math and found it interesting should hopefully be able to easily follow the line of the story. This book is obviously a bit meatier than the books I’ve written before. The Race Against the Turtle was much more narrative. There is a bit more math in here because of the subject matter. So if you run away screaming when you see a formula, then the book is not for you. But if you’re not too afraid of concepts like ‘variable’ or a ‘polynomial,’ I think you’d be a suitable reader.”
Why did you choose a meatier topic this time?
“There is a gap between popular science literature and professional literature. And there is a need for people to know a little bit more about how physics really works. Without any mathematics at all, you can’t really get there. So I wanted to write something closer to professional literature but that can be followed by people who don’t have the time or in-depth background knowledge to study that professional literature as well.”
Was this book more difficult to write than the previous books?
“'Yes, because I wanted to write something about mathematics that would keep people from immediately thinking, ‘I found it difficult at school; I don't like it.’ To write something between narrative style and professional literature such that people don’t run away screaming is what I found difficult.”
You include vivid anecdotes from your own life, which makes it easy to “get into” the book at many points. Can the chapters be read individually?
“That was the intention. But there is more structure in this book than in the previous one, which consisted of 12 separate stories. You see, I first discuss numbers before I can talk about polynomials and then physics again. So in that sense, it does build up. But I wrote it so that if you skip something, you can get back into the next chapter.”
In addition to being a mathematical physicist, you are also an amateur poker player. Wouldn't that be a subject for your next book?
“Yes, that’s an idea I've been walking around with for a while. I’m just not sure exactly how to go about it yet. There are a lot of characteristics that a good poker player and scientist have in common: patience, starting over and over again, and not getting frustrated when something fails once. In addition, there is a lot of probability and mathematical game theory in poker. When the Higgs particle was discovered, a lot of statistics were used to show that the particle actually exists. Those are the same statistics you use in poker.”
Is poker that complex?
“Yes, indeed. Top poker players are more concerned with mathematical analyses run on computers than with actually playing. In chess, that's been true for a while, but it's starting to become more common in poker, too.”
