Fractals, such as this stack

of spheres created using

3-D modeling software, are
one of the mathematical
structures that were invent-
ed for abstract reasons yet
manage to capture reality.

80 Scientific American, August 2011

© 2011 Scientific American
 Mario Livio is a theoretical astrophysicist at the Space Telescope
Science Institute in Baltimore. He has studied a wide range of
cosmic phenomena, ranging from dark energy and super­nova
explosions to extrasolar planets and accretion onto white dwarfs,
neutron stars and black holes.

Why
P H I LOSO P H Y O F SC I E N C E

Math
Works Is math invented or discovered?
A leading astrophysicist suggests that the answer
to the millennia-old question is both

M
By Mario Livio
ost of us take it for granted German physicist Heinrich Hertz detected them. Very
that math works—that sci­ few languages are as effective, able to articulate vol­
entists can devise formulas umes’ worth of material so succinctly and with such
to describe subatomic events precision. Albert Einstein pondered, “How is it possi­
or that engineers can calcu­ ble that mathematics, a product of human thought
late paths for space­craft. We that is independent of experience, fits so excellently
accept the view, initially es­ the objects of physical reality?”
poused by Galileo, that mathematics is the language of As a working theoretical astrophysicist, I encoun­
science and expect that its grammar explains experi­ ter the seemingly “unreasonable effectiveness of math­
mental results and even predicts novel phenomena. ematics,” as Nobel laureate physicist Eugene Wigner
The power of mathematics, though, is nothing short of called it in 1960, in every step of my job. Whether I am
astonishing. Consider, for example, Scottish physicist struggling to understand which progenitor systems
James Clerk Maxwell’s famed equations: not only do produce the stellar explosions known as type Ia super­
these four expressions summarize all that was known novae or calculating the fate of Earth when our sun ul­
of electromagnetism in the 1860s, they also anticipat­ timately becomes a red giant, the tools I use and the
ed the existence of radio waves two decades before models I develop are mathematical. The uncanny way

IN BRIEF

The deepest mysteries are often the things Math concepts developed for purely ab- Part of the puzzle is the question of wheth-
we take for granted. Most people never stract reasons turn out to explain real phe- er mathematics is an invention (a creation
think twice about the fact that scientists nomena. Their utility, as physicist Eugene of the human mind) or a discovery (some-
use mathematics to describe and explain Wigner once wrote, “is a wonderful gift thing that exists independently of us). The
the world. But why should that be the case? which we neither understand nor deserve.” author suggests it is both.

Illustration by Tom Beddard August 2011, [Link] 81

© 2011 Scientific American
that math captures the natural world has fascinated me through­ except that they have no loose
out my career, and about 10 years ago I resolved to look into the ends. In the 1860s Lord Kelvin
issue more deeply. hoped to describe atoms as knot­
At the core of this mystery lies an argument that mathemati­ ted tubes of ether. That misguid­
cians, physicists, philosophers and cognitive scientists have had ed model failed to connect with
for centuries: Is math an invented set of tools, as Einstein be­ reality, but mathematicians con­
lieved? Or does it actually exist in some abstract realm, with hu­ tinued to analyze knots for many
mans merely discovering its truths? Many great mathemati­ decades merely as an esoteric
cians—including David Hilbert, Georg Cantor and the group The universe arm of pure mathematics. Amaz­
known as Nicolas Bourbaki—have shared Einstein’s view, associ­ has regularities, ingly, knot theory now pro­vides
ated with a school of thought called Formalism. But other illustri­ important insights into string
ous thinkers—among them Godfrey Harold Hardy, Roger Pen­
known as theory and loop quantum gravi­
rose and Kurt Gödel—have held the opposite view, Platonism. symmetries, that ty—our current best attempts at
This debate about the nature of mathematics rages on today
and seems to elude an answer. I believe that by asking simply
let physicists articulating a theory of space­
time that reconciles quantum
whether mathematics is invented or discovered, we ignore the describe it mechanics with general relativi­
possibility of a more intricate answer: both invention and dis­ mathematically. ty.������������������������������
�����������������������������
Similarly, English mathemati­
covery play a crucial role. I posit that together they account for cian Hardy’s discoveries in num­
why math works so well. Although eliminating the dichotomy And no one ber theory advanced the field of
between invention and discovery does not fully explain the un­ knows why. cryptography, despite Hardy’s
reasonable effectiveness of mathematics, the problem is so pro­ earlier proclamation that “no one
found that even a partial step toward solving it is progress. has yet discovered any warlike purpose to be served by the theo­
ry of numbers.” And in 1854 Bernhard Riemann described non-
INVENTION AND DISCOVERY Euclidean geo­met­ries—­curious spaces in which parallel lines
mathematics is unreasonably effective in two distinct ways, one I converge or diverge. More than half a century later Einstein in­
think of as active and the other as passive. Sometimes scientists voked those geometries to build his general theory of relativity.
create methods specifically for quantifying real-world phenome­ A pattern emerges: humans invent mathematical concepts
na. For example, Isaac Newton formulated calculus for the pur­ by way of abstracting elements from the world around them—
pose of capturing motion and change, breaking them up into in­ shapes, lines, sets, groups, and so forth—either for some specific
finitesimally small frame-by-frame sequences. Of course, such ac­ purpose or simply for fun. They then go on to discover the con­
tive inventions are effective; the tools are, after all, made to order. nections among those concepts. Because this process of inventing
What is surprising, however, is their stupendous accuracy in some and discovering is man-made—unlike the kind of discovery to
cases. Take, for instance, quantum electrodynamics, the mathe­ which the Platonists subscribe—our mathematics is ultimately
matical theory developed to describe how light and matter inter­ based on our perceptions and the mental pictures we can conjure.
act. When scientists use it to calculate the magnetic moment of For instance, we possess an innate talent, called subitizing, for in­
the electron, the theoretical value agrees with the most recent stantly recognizing quantity, which undoubtedly led to the con­
experimental value—measured at 1.00115965218073 in the ap­ cept of number. We are very good at perceiving the edges of indi­
propriate units in 2008—to within a few parts per trillion! vidual objects and at distinguishing between straight and curved
Even more astonishing, perhaps, mathematicians sometimes lines and between different shapes, such as circles and ellipses—
develop entire fields of study with no application in mind, and yet abilities that probably led to the development of arithmetic and
decades, even centuries, later physicists discover that these very geometry. So, too, the repeated human experience of cause and ef­
branches make sense of their observations. Examples of this kind fect at least partially contributed to the creation of logic and, with
of passive effectiveness abound. French mathematician Évariste it, the notion that certain statements imply the validity of others.
Galois, for example, developed group theory in the early 1800s for
the sole purpose of determining the solvability of polynomial SELECTION AND EVOLUTION
equations. Very broadly, groups are algebraic structures made up michael atiyah, one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th
of sets of objects (say, the integers) united under some operation century, has presented an elegant thought experiment that re­
(for instance, addition) that obey specific rules (among them the veals just how perception colors which mathematical concepts we
existence of an identity element such as 0, which, when added to embrace—even ones as seemingly fundamental as numbers. Ger­
any integer, gives back that same integer). In 20th-century phys­ man mathematician Leopold Kronecker famously declared, “God
ics, this rather abstract field turned out to be the most fruitful created the natural numbers, all else is the work of man.” But
way of categorizing elementary particles—the building blocks of imagine if the intelligence in our world resided not with human­
EDWARD CHARLES LE GRICE Getty Images

matter. In the 1960s physicists Murray Gell-Mann and Yuval kind but rather with a singular, isolated jellyfish, floating deep in
Ne’eman independently showed that a specific group, referred to the Pacific Ocean. Everything in its experience would be continu­
as SU(3), mirrored a behavior of subatomic particles called had­ ous, from the flow of the surrounding water to its fluctuating tem­
rons—a connection that ultimately laid the foundations for the perature and pressure. In such an environment, lacking individu­
modern theory of how atomic nuclei are held together. al objects or indeed anything discrete, would the concept of num­
The study of knots offers another beautiful example of passive ber arise? If there were nothing to count, would numbers exist?
effectiveness. Mathematical knots are similar to everyday knots, Like the jellyfish, we adopt mathematical tools that apply to

82 Scientific American, August 2011

© 2011 Scientific American
our world—a fact that has undoubtedly contributed to the per­ from now. If the universe did not possess these symmetries, any
ceived effectiveness of mathematics. Scientists do not choose an­ attempt to decipher nature’s grand design—any mathematical
alytical methods arbitrarily but rather on the basis of how well model built on our observations—would be doomed because we
they predict the results of their experiments. When a tennis ball would have to continuously repeat experiments at every point in
machine shoots out balls, you can use the natural numbers 1, 2, 3, space and time.
and so on, to describe the flux of balls. When firefighters use a Even more subtle symmetries, called gauge symmetries,
hose, however, they must invoke other concepts, such as volume prevail within the laws that describe the subatomic world. For
or weight, to render a meaningful description of the stream. So, instance, because of the fuzziness of the quantum realm, a giv­
too, when distinct subatomic particles collide in a particle accel­ en particle can be a negatively charged electron or an electri­
erator, physicists turn to measures such as energy and momen­ cally neutral neutrino, or a mixture of both—until we measure
tum and not to the end number of particles, which would reveal the electric charge that distinguishes between the two. As it
only partial information about how the original particles collid­ turns out, the laws of nature take the same form when we inter­
ed because additional particles can be created in the process. change electrons for neutrinos or any mix of the two. The same
Over time only the best models survive. Failed models—such holds true for interchanges of other fundamental particles.
as French philosopher René Descartes’s attempt to describe the Without such gauge symmetries, it would have been very diffi­
motion of the planets by vortices of cosmic matter—die in their cult to provide a theory of the fundamental workings of the
infancy. In contrast, successful models evolve as new information cosmos. We would be similarly stuck without locality—the fact
becomes available. For instance, very accurate measurements of that objects in our universe are influenced directly only by their
the precession of the planet Mercury necessitated an overhaul of immediate surroundings rather than by distant phenomena.
Newton’s theory of gravity in the form of Einstein’s general rela­ Thanks to locality, we can attempt to assemble a mathematical
tivity. All successful mathematical concepts have a long shelf life: model of the universe much as we might put together a jigsaw
the formula for the surface area of a sphere remains as correct to­ puzzle, starting with a description of the most basic forces
day as it was when Archimedes proved it around 250 b.c. As a re­ among elementary particles and then building on additional
sult, scientists of any era can search through a vast arsenal of for­ pieces of knowledge.
malisms to find the most appropriate methods. Our current best mathematical attempt at unifying all inter­
Not only do scientists cherry-pick solutions, they also tend to actions calls for yet another symmetry, known as supersymme­
select problems that are amenable to mathematical treatment. try. In a universe based on supersymmetry, every known parti­
There exists, however, a whole host of phenomena for which no cle must have an as yet undiscovered partner. If such partners
accurate mathematical predictions are possible, sometimes not are discovered (for instance, once the Large Hadron Collider at
even in principle. In economics, for example, many variables—the CERN near Geneva reaches its full energy), it will be yet another
detailed psychology of the masses, to name one—do not easily triumph for the effectiveness of mathematics.
lend themselves to quantitative analysis. The predictive value of I started with two basic, interrelated questions: Is mathemat­
any theory relies on the constancy of the underlying relations ics invented or discovered? And what gives mathematics its ex­
among variables. Our analyses also fail to fully capture systems planatory and predictive powers? I believe that we know the an­
that develop chaos, in which the tiniest change in the initial condi­ swer to the first question. Mathematics is an intricate fusion of
tions may produce entirely different end results, prohibiting any inventions and discoveries. Concepts are generally invented, and
long-term predictions. Mathematicians have developed statistics even though all the correct relations among them existed before
and probability to deal with such shortcomings, but mathematics their discovery, humans still chose which ones to study. The sec­
itself is limited, as Austrian logician Gödel famously proved. ond question turns out to be even more complex. There is no
doubt that the selection of topics we address mathematically has
SYMMETRY OF NATURE played an important role in math’s perceived effectiveness. But
this careful selection of problems and solutions only partially mathematics would not work at all were there no universal fea­
accounts for mathematics’s success in describing the laws of na­ tures to be discovered. You may now ask: Why are there univer­
ture. Such laws must exist in the first place! Luckily for mathema­ sal laws of nature at all? Or equivalently: Why is our universe
ticians and physicists alike, universal laws appear to govern our governed by certain symmetries and by locality? I truly do not
cosmos: an atom 12 billion light-years away behaves just like an know the answers, except to note that perhaps in a universe
atom on Earth; light in the distant past and light today share the without these properties, complexity and life would have never
same traits; and the same gravitational forces that shaped the emerged, and we would not be here to ask the question.
universe’s initial structures hold sway over present-day galaxies.
MORE TO EXPLORE
Mathematicians and physicists have invented the concept of sym­
metry to describe this kind of immunity to change. The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. Eugene Wigner
The laws of physics seem to display symmetry with respect to in Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 13, No. 1, pages 1–14; February 1960.
Pi in the Sky: Counting, Thinking, and Being. John D. Barrow. Back Bay Books, 1992.
space and time: They do not depend on where, from which an­
Creation v. Discovery. Michael Atiyah in Times Higher Education Supplement; Septem-
gle, or when we examine them. They are also identical to all ob­ ber 29, 1995.
servers, irrespective of whether these observers are at rest, mov­ Is God a Mathematician? Mario Livio. Simon & Schuster, 2010.
ing at constant speeds or accelerating. Consequently, the same SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ONLINE
laws explain our results, whether the experiments occur in Chi­ Is mathematics invented, discovered, both or neither? See examples of remarkable math-
na, Alabama or the Andromeda galaxy—and whether we con­ ematical structures that invite this question at [Link]/aug11/livio
duct our experiment today or someone else does a billion years

August 2011, [Link] 83

© 2011 Scientific American