Welcome to the first lecture of our course on the physics of impossible things.

I'm Ben Schumacher, a professor of Physics at Kenyon College, and I'll be your instructor for this course. No , I must tell you from the outset that this course is a parado!. "n the one hand, it is a course on physics. It's a serious e!ploration of the fundamental la s of nature and e ill be thin#ing about the ay the orld really is. $et, on the other hand, our central focus, our basic theme, and our indispensable tool, ill be the impossible. So e ill also be thin#ing about the ay the orld really isn't. In this course, e'll be tal#ing about cra%y stuff. We'll be tal#ing about going bac# in time, going faster than the speed of light, and escaping from inside a blac# hole. We'll discuss machines that produce limitless energy. We'll discuss insects of gigantic si%e. We'll also consider a fe less& familiar impossibilities, li#e e!actly duplicating a 'uantum particle or producing an electromagnetic miracle. No , many of these ideas are familiar from science fiction stories. We ill use some of those stories for our inspiration. $et, in fact(and this is 'uite an interesting fact(physicists thin# about impossible things 'uite a lot. Why) Why is it a useful pursuit to study impossible things) *s I see it there are three essential reasons for this. +he first is that the boundary bet een the possible and the impossible is an important line. It's a good thing to #no hat is and is not possible in our uni,erse. +he la s of physics determine here the line bet een the possible and the impossible should be dra n. So it's a good thing to thin# about -ust here that line is and hy. Second, thin#ing about the impossible is a tremendous tool for understanding the la s of physics. +his is the main idea of this course. $ou see, by pondering the impossible e gain ama%ing insights into the meaning of physical la s, and the remar#able connections bet een different branches of physics. It turns out that hene,er e find that something is really and truly impossible, there is al ays a great principle of physics at or#. +hird, our o n understanding of the la s of nature is imperfect. it's pro,isional. /istory tells us that disco,eries can lead to re,olutionary changes in our #no ledge of physics. Whene,er our theories ad,ance, e ha,e to redra our line bet een the possible and the impossible. Sometimes big changes are made. Sometimes things that ere once thought possible, turn out to be impossible. 0or e!ample, perpetual motion machines ere regarded as possible for a long time, but no e #no they're impossible. It also can happen that things e once thought ere impossible, turn out to be possible after all. 0or e!ample, finding out hat the distant stars are made of, as once thought impossible. no e do it all the time. +hin#ing about impossible things, therefore, is going to be useful in such re,olutionary times. +hin#ing about impossible things ill help us understand the meaning and significance of ne disco,eries and ne theories. No , I said there ere three reasons, but of course there are really four. $ou see, thin#ing about impossible things is terrifically entertaining. It is a really fun game1 So, hat ma#es the game of the impossible so fun to play) Well, on the one hand, it challenges our imagination. It inspires our creati,ity. It forces us to thin# outside of the bo!. "n the other hand, to play the impossible game ell, e ha,e to use careful reasoning and ironclad logic. * game that uses both of these things, both imagination and logic, and brings them together

for understanding the la s of nature, that's a game orth playing. So, first of all, hat do e mean by the ord 2impossible2) When is it reasonable to say that something is impossible) In this course, e ill distinguish among three different types of impossibility and each of them is useful to thin# about. So, there are three types of impossibility. +he first is absolute impossibility. Something is an absolute impossibility if it in,ol,es a logical or mathematical contradiction. +his is a #ind of impossibility that does not rely on any special assumptions. +he thing is impossible in itself. What I mean is that e cannot imagine a orld in hich this #ind of impossible thing is actually true. So an absolute impossibility is the strongest type of impossibility. +he second type of impossibility is hat e might call a deri,ed impossibility. +his is something that's not impossible in itself, but it's impossible because it contradicts some accepted assumption about the orld. +his is most often hat e mean by a physical impossibility. We mean something that contradicts the la s of physics. We can imagine a orld in hich such an impossibility is actually true, but such a orld is not our o n orld. It's a orld that follo s different la s. No , of course, this type of impossibility depends on ho reliable our assumptions are. If e change the frame or# of assumptions that e use, for e!ample, if e are forced to change the la s of physics that e #no (then e must ree,aluate this type of impossibility. 0inally, the third type of impossibility is hat e might call statistical impossibility. No , a statistical impossibility is not impossible in the strictest sense, but it's something that is so o,er helmingly improbable that e can regard it as effecti,ely impossible. So, for e!ample, let's imagine that e ta#e a fair coin and e flip it 34,444 times. It's e'ually li#ely to land hands or tails each time. Could I flip this coin 34,444 times and get all heads) +he ans er is, yes, this is possible. $et, it is so unli#ely that it might as ell be impossible. So, hat are the odds of flipping this coin 34,444 times and getting all heads) Well, the odds are about 5 follo ed by 6434 %eroes, to 3 against. +hose are stupendous odds. We could imagine this happening. it ouldn't contradict any la s of physics for this to happen. It could happen e,en in our o n orld, but it is e!traordinarily unli#ely for it to happen, and so e can regard it as effecti,ely impossible. It's a statistical impossibility. No , I'd li#e to gi,e you some illustrations of these 6 types of impossibilities, the absolute impossibilities, the deri,ed physical impossibilities, and the statistical impossibilities. I'd also li#e to nominate patron saints for each type. +hese patron saints ill be significant figures in the history of science, ho thought about the impossible, and ho used the impossible to ad,ance our understanding of the orld. So, e'll start out ith our patron saint of absolute impossibility, 7uclid. 7uclid, of course, as a 8ree# mathematician. /e flourished around 644 BC7. /is great boo#, +he 7lements, is a treatise on geometry and the theory of numbers. +he 7lements is ithout doubt the most influential math te!tboo# in history. It's used as a te!tboo# right up to our present day. *ll geometry te!tboo#s are modeled, to some e!tent, on 7uclid's 7lements. What 7uclid did is he started out ith some basic postulates about geometry, postulates about the properties of points and lines and so on. +hen, he used rigorous logic to pro,e more ad,anced propositions. "ne of 7uclid's fa,orite methods as something called proof by contradiction, hich

is also #no n as reductio ad absurdum, reduction to an absurdity. So, ho does a proof by contradiction or#) Suppose you ant to pro,e !. /o do you do it) What you do is you pretend that ! is not true. +his ill turn out to be a mathematical impossibility. We're going to e,entually pro,e that ! is true. $et, you pretend that ! is not true. +hen, you logically sho that this hypothesis leads to a logical contradiction. therefore, ! must be true after all, because assuming that it's false, leads to a contradiction. I'm going to gi,e you a specific e!ample. +his is actually from 7uclid's 7lements. It's in Boo# 3 and it's Proposition 9 of Boo# 3. +his is actually the ,ery first proof by contradiction in 7uclid's 7lements. It's a proposition about triangles, li#e the triangle *BC. 7uclid has -ust sho n in Proposition : that if *BC has 5 sides of e'ual length, let's say *B and *C are of e'ual length(that is to say, if it's hat's called an isosceles triangle(then the angles at the bottom, at B and C, must be e'ual to each other. No 7uclid ants to pro,e the re,erse. If you ha,e a triangle *BC and the angles at point B and point C are e'ual to each other, then the sides *B and *C ha,e to ha,e e'ual length. $ou ha,e to ha,e an isosceles triangle. So, hat 7uclid does is he says suppose that's not true. 7uclid imagines an impossible triangle in hich the angles at the bottom are e'ual, the angles at B and C are e'ual, but the length of *B is longer than the length of *C. 8i,en such a triangle, hat do you do) What 7uclid says is, you can pic# a point ;, hich is on the *B side, so that the distance bet een ; and B is the same as the distance bet een * and C. So ;B and *C are e'ual to each other. So e can ta#e our diagram and e can di,ide it into t o pieces. +here's an angle ;BC and an angle *CB. +hose 5 angles are e'ual, our original assumption, and those 5 pieces of the diagram share a common side, the base, BC, hich is of course the same length as CB. +hat segment has the same length as itself. +he other 5 sides, ;B on the one side and *C on the other side, ha,e sides that are e'ual by our hypothesis. +hat's ho e pic#ed the point ;. +herefore, the 5 triangles that e formed, ;BC and *CB, must be the same. they're congruent triangles. *ctually, they must be e!act mirror images of each other in the plane. If they're congruent triangles, then they must ha,e e!actly the same area. $et, one of those triangles is actually a part of the other. +hat means that the areas of the 5 triangles cannot be e'ual. "ne area must be greater than the other one, and so e',e arri,ed at a contradiction. e arri,ed at an absurdity. +herefore, our imagined triangle must really be impossible. It must be impossible to ma#e a triangle ith the 5 angles being e'ual, but the 5 sides not being e'ual. +hat means that the proposition is pro,ed. No , notice hat 7uclid has done. By thin#ing about something that is mathematically impossible, an impossible triangle, he has helped to establish hat is really true about actual triangles. /e's used the impossibility of the triangle as a tool. +hat's hat ma#es 7uclid our patron saint of absolute impossibility. So, ho's our patron saint of deri,ed or physical impossibility) 0or that e're going to choose none other than Isaac Ne ton. /e as, of course, an 7nglish physicist of the late 3<th and early 3=th century. /e as one of the greatest scientific minds in all of history. /is great or#, Principia >athematica Philosophiae Naturalis, published in 39=<, as a fantastic foundation for the science of mechanics.

>echanics, of course, is the science of force and motion. Ne ton founded this science based on la s of motion and gra,itation. /is mechanics as able to describe the motion of e,erything from pro-ectiles to planets based on a single set of la s. So, I ant to focus on something in Boo# 3 of the Principia, -ust after he introduces the la s of motion. /e's discussing the la of action and reaction, one of those la s of motion. /e imagines t o ob-ects, Number 3 and Number 5, t o balls, perhaps. If Number 3 e!erts a force on Number 5, the force of Number 5 on Number 3 must be e!actly e'ual in strength and opposite in direction. +hat's a general la , in fact. it applies to all forces bet een all ob-ects. So, Ne ton as#s, hat if this eren't true) What if the la of action and reaction had an e!ception) Ne ton then considered hat e might call Ne ton's dumbbell. $ou ha,e 5 spheres and they're connected to each other by a stiff rod. We'll suppose that the spheres attract each other, but one of the spheres e!periences a greater force in contradiction to the la of action and reaction. "ne of the spheres e!periences a greater force. What happens to the dumbbell) Well, on the dumbbell, there's a net force to one side. "ne of the forces is greater than the other, so the hole dumbbell accelerates in that direction. $et this ,iolates another of the la s of motion, the la of inertia, hich states that in the absence of an outside force, the dumbbell should remain at rest or mo,e ith constant ,elocity. $et this dumbbell accelerates ithout an outside force. So, by thin#ing about a physically impossible dumbbell, Ne ton sho s ho the la s of motion fit together. If you contradict the la of action and reaction for the 5 spheres, then you must also contradict the la of inertia for the hole dumbbell. +hat's a significant insight into mechanics. +hat's hy e nominate Ne ton as the patron saint of this type of impossibility. So, ho shall e nominate for our patron saint of statistical impossibility) Well, I'm going to nominate ?ames Cler# >a! ell, a Scottish physicist of the 3@th century. No , almost e,eryone has heard of 7uclid and Ne ton, but I thin# that >a! ell deser,es that #ind of fame. /e made decisi,e disco,eries in electromagnetism and thermodynamics. /e created the first color photograph in history and he in,ented engineering control theory, among other things. /e's one of my heroes in physics and he ill come up in this course se,eral times. "ur present concern is a passage from his boo# +heory of /eat, published in 3=<3. >a! ell in,ites us to consider a container ith a gas inside. Initially, the gas only fills half of the container and the rest is empty. So maybe there as a partition do n the middle of the container, e remo,ed the partition, and no e as# hat ill happen to the gas) Well, hat happens to the gas of course is that the gas rapidly e!pands and fills the hole container. No , the re,erse process, here the gas spontaneously starts out in the hole container and gathers to one side, is ne,er seen. In the mid&3@th century, they understood that this fact illustrates something called the second la of thermodynamics, the science of heat and energy transformations. +his gas e!pansion is an irre,ersible process. it cannot go bac# ard on its o n. We can compress the gas, but e'd ha,e to push the gas to do it. +he gas -ust on't -ump bac# into one half of the container on its o n. It's a physical impossibility. We're going to discuss this a lot in lectures fi,e and si!. No , >a! ell pointed out that the gas is made up of trillions upon trillions of tiny molecules. +hese molecules fly around, colliding, bouncing off the sides of the container. +he motion of these molecules is immensely comple!. We must regard it in fact as chaotic and random, although it actually is follo ing Ne ton's la s of motion. So, >a! ell as#s, hat pre,ents the impossible)

What pre,ents all of the gas molecules from going to one half of the container) /is ans er is rather startling. /is ans er is nothing pre,ents it. It could happen, but it is e!ceedingly improbable. "K, hat are the odds) Well, hen e flipped a coin, e estimated the odds of 34,444 heads to be a 5 follo ed by 6434 %eroes, to 3 against. +hat as pretty unli#ely. So hat are the odds that all of the gas molecules ill gather on one side of the container) Well, that's a 3 follo ed by 3:4 billion trillion %eroes, to 3 against. $et this is statistically impossible. What >a! ell reali%es, is that the la s of thermodynamics, at least the second la , are statistical la s, la s about probabilities. +his is a profound insight in the history of science. +his is hat ma#es >a! ell the patron saint of statistical impossibility. No >a! ell actually too# this a further step to illustrate his point. /e de,ised a famous thought e!periment called >a! ell's demon. +his is a tiny being that manipulates the atoms and can radically change the odds of hat happens. We ill discuss >a! ell's demon at some length in lecture si!. "K, e',e seen three different #inds of impossibility(absolute or mathematical impossibility, deri,ed or physical impossibility, and statistical impossibility. We',e seen ho these can be used as tools for establishing the line bet een the possible and the impossible, for e!ploring ho the la s of physics fit together, and for changing our ,ie s about those la s in the light of ne disco,eries. No , since our course is about the impossible, e're going to range all o,er the place in topic. We're going to tal# about many, many branches of physics. We're going to tal# about phenomena large and small, theories old and ,ery ne . +his ill gi,e us, I hope, a ,ery no,el ,ie of the physical orld, not at all li#e an ordinary physics course. $et the danger is that this might seem li#e a disconnected series of entertaining stories, a mere catalog of curiosities. Such a thing might be fun, but I ant to tell you, that is not hat e are about. /ere's hat e ill find. We ill find that similar themes recur o,er and o,er again in our discussion, that 'uite different impossible things turn out to be impossible for ,ery similar reasons, and that these facts are mar#ers of fundamental principles of nature. No , our future lectures are going to fall into some natural groupings. +here's going to be about a half a do%en lectures on energy and information. We'll see hy e cannot create or destroy energy. We'll see hy e cannot e,en al ays turn one form of energy into another. We'll discuss hy e cannot reach absolute %ero, the absolute minimum temperature, the limit of cold. We'll also see hy e cannot e!actly predict the future. *fter this, e're going to do se,eral more lectures here e get into issues about space and time, cause and effect. We'll tal# about hy e cannot tra,el into the past, or go faster than the speed of light. We'll tal# about hy it is impossible to escape from inside that blac# hole. We'll tal# about hy time tra,el is ne,ertheless a real topic of fundamental research today. We'll spend a fe lectures tal#ing about the notion of symmetry and geometry. No , the idea of symmetry is a crucially important idea for physics, but ho is it connected to the impossible) Well, e say that a shape has a symmetry(let's say it's left&right symmetric(if it is impossible to tell hether the shape has been reflected. +he reflected ,ersion and the original are e!actly the same. So, symmetry is a principle of impossibility.

In the same ay, e can as# hether the la s of physics themsel,es are symmetric. We can consider mirror orlds, a orld in hich e',e e!changed left and right, matter and antimatter, or the future and the past. We can as#, ould it be possible to distinguish those mirror orlds from our o n) We can also tal# about magnified orlds, orlds here e,erything has -ust been enlarged. We'll find out hy the 7arth is ne,er actually menaced by those giant insect monsters. *fter this, e're going to turn to the 'uantum orld. We're going to tal# about ho the 'uantum re,olution changed physics, and hy it is impossible to #no precisely here a particle is and here it is going. We'll tal# about ho 'uantum particles can go places and do things that seem impossible. We'll tal# about ho the idea of the impossible guides our understanding of elementary particles. We'll tal# about hy it is impossible to duplicate a 'uantum particle, and hy that is one of the most important facts in the uni,erse. *t the end of our course, e're going to ta#e up some profound 'uestions about the physical orld. We're going to pose the 'uestion, hat does all of this impossible stuff tell us about the la s of nature) We're going to as#, ho does the uni,erse actually enforce its la s) We'll actually be able to gi,e a partial ans er to that 'uestion. We'll as#, hat #inds of impossibility are there) What #inds of impossibility are possible) *s e learn more about nature, hat is the future of the impossible) No , this is inspired, in part, by my o n or# as a physicist, my o n thin#ing about impossible things. >y research specialty is in something called 'uantum information theory, hich is ho 'uantum physics go,erns the ay e store and retrie,e and transmit and process information. It's a relati,ely ne branch of physics. it's still full of surprises. We're still mapping out the border bet een the possible and the impossible. So, I find myself using the impossible as a tool for figuring out hat the la s of physics mean and ho they or#. I #eep running into astonishing connections bet een apparently disparate sub-ects(bet een thermodynamics and relati,ity, and 'uantum physics and information theory, and more. Sometimes I',e had to re,ise my thin#ing about the impossible in light of ne disco,eries. I'm as often surprised by hat turns out to be possible, as I am by hat turns out to be impossible. +his continues to be a tremendous ad,enture. +hat e!perience has been the inspiration for this course. I #no of no ay to get more directly at more fundamental 'uestions about the physical orld, than to use the impossible. If our goal, therefore, is understanding, then there is nothing more practical than the impossible. $et of course, if e're going to use the idea of the impossible, e had better be careful. /istory is full of surprises. Aots of things ere once regarded as impossible and ere later found to be possible after all. +here ere technological impossibilities, li#e po ered flight and nuclear energy. +hey said it couldn't be done, and then somebody did it. +here ha,e also been natural and scientific impossibilities. +hey said that it couldn't happen, they said that it as scientifically impossible for something to happen, and then someone disco,ered that it did happen. So, in our discussion of the impossible, e'd li#e to a,oid such failures of the imagination. Ne!t time, e're going to ta#e a loo# at a fe of these not&'uite impossible things.