The Chemistry of Social Change

 I love chemistry, and was one of the top students in my introductory chemistry class in college. It's been years since I've done chemistry, and I was terrible in the lab because I had poor fine motor skills, though I did invent a protocol for understanding adult neurogenesis in rats, which is the ability of traumatized rats to rewire their synapses to overcome PTSD. That was at the Veteran's Hospital in White River Junction, Vermont. At any rate, today I discovered that my chemistry abilities have been revived from nowhere, and that I could read a famous article on chemistry by Alan Turing. Chemistry may be very important to an experiment I want to conduct using liquid helium to test forces that in my belief compel pure cooperation (which means quasi-particles or particles act in a certain way) under a phase transition.

What this heck does this have to do with law? Actually, physicists should get the first "shot" of answering this one. There's an entire branch of physics that is deeply interested in social science, and it's called "econophysics," such as this cool paper from Professor Jim Sethna on physics and mosh pits. (He probably just wrote this one for fun.) My primary interests in physics are in mathematical physics, cosmology, and in applied physics, but I also have an interest in physics and the social sciences because I am law professor. Many important physicists also take an interest in social issues, even though this area of physics is considered fringe. There's an entire branch of physics dedicated to modeling what is known as Quantum Game Theory, which I hope to master (or mistress) later in life. But QGT is not the most well-respected branch of physics even though it should be, and arrives at the same answer is Freeman Dyson and William Press, who studied a brand of game theory known as Zero-Determinant strategies.

What does chemistry have to do with physics? And what do chemistry and physics have to do with law? I think econo-physicists would point to a phenomenon known as "quantum entanglement" and would look to complexity studies, another brand of game theory supported by my amazing mentor Professor James Grimmelmann at Cornell. (James if you read this, shout out to you!) And physicists would say that the same forces that compel particles to behave in a certain way could also act on animals and human actors, and could explain why some people act poorly in environment alpha and suddenly act better in environment beta. There's a great quote I love about a wilting flower that says if a beautiful flower (such as a rose) is wilting, change the environment, not the flower. Or at least try it before you throw out the flower.

In any event, there are really interesting strands of literature in physics dedicated to modeling, say, the U.S. Supreme Court via game theory. But is there a model of social movements yet, or a broader theory of physics and social change? Not yet. And I theorize that such an answer may be forthcoming, and that game theorists who specialize in complexity studies may be interested in my answer, which has to do with the law of armed conflict, and with social movements arising spontaneously and organically, without speaking to one and other, kind of like Thomas Schelling's famous experiment involving two people meeting at noon in Grand Central Station if stranded in New York and told to find each other.

Social movements may arise spontaneously, as occurred in the Black Lives Matter movement, which did not even have official leaders the way the Civil Rights Movement did. Or there was a social movement in Chile where schoolchildren complained about conditions in their middle schools, where their bathrooms were overflowing with refuse and the children couldn't afford school supplies, even though these school supplies were mandated by Chile's constitution, which unlike the U.S. constitution includes positive socio-economic rights and not just negative rights. These middle schoolers brought President Michelle Bachalet and the entire Chilean nation to its knees, all without leaders, and all without significant organizing. The protests were spontaneous and then spread to high schools, and then the colleges, and then led to real world change.

Did the middle schoolers ever consider whether their movement was "plausible"? I postulate no, but they organically acted, compelled by the force of injustice to do something, just like particles can act if a force compels them to, and that's physics and chemistry 101. 

-Cortelyou C. Kenney (Sept. 11, 2025 at 2:33 pm CT)