# Particle Physics Planet

## December 12, 2013

### Lubos Motl - string vacua and pheno

Prophets and prophecy-independent scientists
Today, the winner of the $3 million 2014 Milner Prize (see candidates) will be announced in San Francisco along with five winners of the$3 million Milner-and-few-pals Award in Life Sciences (I hope that I remembered the official name of the honor exactly). One 3 million prize for a psychic (no kidding) will be decided in January. Watch the news. A week ago, Nima Arkani-Hamed gave a talk on a one-day symposium in Stony Brook; click here if the HTML5 video tag below doesn't work for you. His talk about the exotic methods to calculate the scattering amplitudes in gauge theory (and the whole symposium) was dedicated to David Kosower, Lance Dixon, and Zvi Bern who recently received the 2014 Sakurai Prize. Aside from interesting comments on the internal structure of the amplitudes, the integrability that is being obscured by the local-and-unitary description based on Feynman diagrams, and the interesting creative confrontation between the S-matrix-like and Feynman-diagram-based techniques, Nima would say interesting things about the sociology of physics and especially the different personalities of physicists. These sociological comments appear close to the beginning; and around 21:00. To make the story short, even good physicists are divided to prophets and non-prophets. I think that Nima is using the word "ideologue" as a synononym for a "prophet". Kosower, Zvi, and Bern are also being praised for having been able to work on topics that were not really fashionable. Some authors of junk popular books use the word "seer" and it means pretty much the same thing, although at a more vulgar and obscene level. A difference is that Nima views the "prophet" label as a negative one. These people are overpriced, he thinks, and they are often given credit for making vague prophesies that turn out to be right "in some sense" even though some degree of agreement is almost guaranteed to materialize and very different people have done the hard work to decide what is exactly true and what is not true and why. Kosower, Bern, and Dixon are praised as the non-prophets by Nima; Nima himself degrades himself into a prophet. In fact, he is a serial ideologue who is ready to become an enthusiastic supporter of today's ideology while instantly abandoning yesterday's ideology. On the other hand, the really smart people don't need any ideology – they just adopt ideas from all sides and create something neat out of them, Nima explains. Needless to say, Nima is displaying some (cute but partially staged) modesty and apparent masochism by these comments; he is an excessively good worker who is also using ideas from all directions, regardless of the origin. I would like to emphasize that this separation of the physics community wasn't invented by Nima Arkani-Hamed (or Lee Smolin). I've been aware of a similar one for 25 years – since my first reading of Albert Einstein's 1918 speech celebrating Max Planck's 60th birthday that was included in "Mein Weltbild", a book whose Czech translation I liked to re-read as a teenager. In the temple of science are many mansions, and various indeed are they that dwell therein and the motives that have led them thither. Many take to science out of a joyful sense of superior intellectual power; science is their own special sport to which they look for vivid experience and the satisfaction of ambition; many others are to be found in the temple who have offered the products of their brains on this altar for purely utilitarian purposes. Were an angel of the Lord to come and drive all the people belonging to these two categories out of the temple, the assemblage would be seriously depleted, but there would still be some men, of both present and past times, left inside. Our Planck is one of them, and that is why we love him. I am quite aware that we have just now light-heartedly expelled in imagination many excellent men who are largely, perhaps chiefly, responsible for the building of the temple of science; and in many cases our angel would find it a pretty ticklish job to decide. But of one thing I feel sure: if the types we have just expelled were the only types there were, the temple would never have come to be, any more than a forest can grow which consists of nothing but creepers. For these people any sphere of human activity will do, if it comes to a point; whether they become engineers, officers, tradesmen, or scientists depends on circumstances. Now let us have another look at those who have found favor with the angel. Most of them are somewhat odd, uncommunicative, solitary fellows, really less like each other, in spite of these common characteristics, than the hosts of the rejected. What has brought them to the temple? That is a difficult question and no single answer will cover it. To begin with, I believe with Schopenhauer that one of the strongest motives that leads men to art and science is escape from everyday life with its painful crudity and hopeless dreariness, from the fetters of one's own ever shifting desires. A finely tempered nature longs to escape from personal life into the world of objective perception and thought; this desire may be compared with the townsman's irresistible longing to escape from his noisy, cramped surroundings into the silence of high mountains, where the eye ranges freely through the still, pure air and fondly traces out the restful contours apparently built for eternity. With this negative motive there goes a positive one. You see that it's not quite the same thing but it's related. Einstein divided the temple of science to profit-seekers (or utilitarians) and ego-builders (or athletes) on one side and monks (or missionaries) on the other side. Max Planck was included into the rare latter category by Einstein. Despite Einstein's stellar moral credentials in the public, I actually find it plausible today that Einstein himself might have been a representative of the former category as the Einstein and Eddington movie suggested. He might have been an utilitarian, not a monk (which I used to believe to be an accurate label for Einstein 25 years ago). But let's gradually return to the modern separation to prophets and non-prophets. While the prophets are analogous to Einstein's monks when it comes to their spiritual motives, it is the non-prophets who may be closer to Einstein's description of the monks when it comes to the silence and modesty. So a bit paradoxical transformation of the two groups has taken place; it's the prophets (formerly monks) who are good at exciting emotions and P.R. these days and the engineer-like hard workers are the modest ones. ;-) I don't want to make this discussion completely chaotic so let's return to Nima's modern separation of the two castes of physicists completely. Which group is "better"? Well, I think that both groups – and groups in between as well as completely different groups – are important for the health of science. Lots of detailed if not "microscopic" work has to be done for the big-picture or at least "macroscopic" skeleton to be robust. And the microscopic work may often grow to something grand. On the other hand, if Nima were suggesting that the "ideological", big-picture thinking may be completely removed from science, I would strongly disagree. Even if we agree that science is not "entirely" about the big-picture questions only, it is "also" about them. The big-picture thinking is needed to be aware of the relative importance of different kinds of the microscopic work, too. It's needed for the bulk of researchers not to be caught in some minor technicalities while big questions and discoveries in different research directions remain neglected. So the non-prophet researchers often end up doing many important results but this fact doesn't make their attitude superior because there are many non-prophet researchers who aren't that happy. In some sense, I do think that the importance of the research separated from the big picture is a matter of chance. (It may be non-PC these days but I still find it important to point out that I still consider Lance Dixon's work between 1985 and 1991 on orbifolds and related questions in string theory – including the monstrous moonshine – to be more important than all his later work on amplitudes combined. And I know some profound researchers who agree with me.) Moreover, the big-picture interpretation of some results is often a matter of a clear thinking. Someone doesn't see what some partial technical results actually mean, what are their (more) far-reaching implications, but someone else does see it and it's important to know it if it is true – or at least "somewhat vaguely true". The really dangerous trap of the "ideological" approach to science – and Nima is obviously aware of it – is the ability of the ideological prejudices to remove one's impartiality. One may invent rationalizations for the decision to ignore some individual, "minor" results that go in an ideologically inconvenient direction and, as Nima says, everyone does it to a certain extent because it is a human thing to do so. Well, first of all, I would say that it is not only human but to a large extent, it is right, rational, and scientific. Some principles – and even "somewhat vague prophesies" – are so powerful and important that it is right to dismiss some individual results contradicting a principle as "almost certainly wrong ones" and others as "potentially misinterpreted exceptions". In my opinion, it is important not to overlook the forest for the trees. A macroscopic perspective is often necessary. On the other hand, the macroscopic reasoning and perspective is usually imperfect, at least a little bit imperfect, and it's important to realize its limitations and the inability of a philosophy to dictate the character of valid scientific results forever. A philosophy may have "worked" for years but it may still break down on a sunny day if not a cloudy day. Philosophies aren't guaranteed to work forever; their strength boils down to collective features of established (and ultimately empirically supported) scientific findings, too. People are trying different strategies to approach questions, different degrees of confidence in the "literal" or "microscopic" thinking on one side or the "far-reaching" or "macroscopic" or "ideological" thinking on the other side. Some of them are sometimes more successful than others so the community of researchers may constantly update the weights and decide about a sensible role assigned to the philosophical vs literal thinking about the problems. So I believe all kinds of thinking may turn out to be superior in different contexts and I would never cherish one of them only. It's important to preserve the scientific integrity, to work hard, and to realize that any belief is potentially fallible and falsifiable. Regardless of one's focus on big-picture arguments, principles, and philosophies, a sufficient amount of results may accumulate to convince someone that his or her previous beliefs were imperfect or downright wrong. It's wrong if someone's stubbornness is infinite; but it's also wrong if someone tries to eliminate the "inertia of beliefs" because this inertia has very good reasons to exist. Nima, with his promotion of conservatism in physics, would agree even though this comment seems to be in a tension with some other assertions he has made. The anthropic controversy is an interesting playground to think about these ideological-vs-technical issues. The anthropic-vs-non-anthropic dilemma (perhaps equivalently, anthropic-vs-naturalness dilemma) has been something that Nima has considered spectacularly important in the recent decade. It's the ultimate crossroad of science for him. It made him excited and led him to write numerous papers – sort of on both sides of this aisle. It's good that ideologies may do some creative work. But others, like myself, would never share this excitement. I think that neither the existing non-anthropic (or "natural") solutions nor the existing anthropic ones look like a satisfactory final answer to the questions that these paradigms are supposed to answer (especially why some small parameters in Nature are so small). The existing anthropic explanations are largely vague, illogical, ill-defined, acausal, and unpredictive, among related vices. The existing natural explanations of all the small parameters either contradict some empirical data or fail to be really natural or are heavily non-unique, among related vices. In my opinion, that's why it is wrong to pretend that we have reduced the possibilities to a shortlist of two candidates. We don't have any two good candidates. The true answer to all these "anthropic" questions may very well be e.g. a mechanism that divides each hierarchy to numerous "minor hierarchies"; or it may be a solution that lies in between the anthropic one and the non-anthropic one or a solution that renders the question "is the anthropic principle right" meaningless or ambiguous (some nearly unimaginable hybrid). We just don't know. We don't have good "final models" which is exactly the situation in which one should stay open-minded. But when it comes to the very ability of "scientific ideologies" to stimulate some work, I think it is a good force of Nature. Science is not only a competition between individual detailed technical hypotheses; it is a competition between "big paradigms" or "ideologies", too. It's important that the battle obeys the scientific rules and that no candidates are eliminated "a priori" (the "a posteriori" elimination, i.e. falsification, is right and essential, however). At the end, the ability of technical results to support or disfavor "ideologies" is one of the main reasons of their existence – and I think that this claim is especially true in research that has no applications because "big questions" are among the primary motivations of the pure scientific research. An extra comment about some particular ideologies – the "amplituhedon" and the "spacetime is doomed". The amplituhedron work and the results that led to it are amazing mathematical insights but I don't really see how they support the "spacetime is doomed" ideology. I have already discussed this issue in the second part of the diaperhedron post. The spacetime is doomed but the space in which the amplituhedron lives is some "auxiliary space" of a mathematical character that has no direct "physical" interpretation. In some sense, I believe that every interpretation that may be called "physical" must make some references to the spacetime, to the relative positioning of objects or events (although the modern descriptions often make the very character and shape of the spacetime highly non-unique etc.). Nima and Jaroslav don't really have a "replacement" for the physical concept of the spacetime which is why so far, their space must be viewed as an auxiliary space whose ultimate purpose is just to be a tool in the intermediate steps required to make valid propositions about the spacetime phenomena at the end. I may be more explicit. I think that the conceptual role of the space hosting the amplituhedron isn't too different from the status of the moduli space of Riemann surfaces in string theory. It's some auxiliary space. Integrals over this space produce scattering amplitudes (although the technical details are very different). In the 1980s, e.g. during the First Superstring Revolution, people would view the concepts of perturbative string theory – including the moduli spaces of Riemann surfaces – as the fundamental ones while spacetime was already reduced to a secondary emergent object. However, I think that this way of thinking was really "undone" by the Second Superstring Revolution in the 1990s that returned the physics to the spacetime, sort of. Objects associated with weakly coupled strings were downgraded to some effective description that is only useful in a corner of the stringy configuration space. The physical claims that were valid universally, even at strong coupling, had to be reconnected with the spacetime once again. In this sense, I believe that Nima's ideology is trying to undo the Second Superstring Revolution again and upgrade a particular auxiliary structure – analogous to those in a weakly coupled limit of string theory – to the Master. But I think that he doesn't have the evidence that these mathematical structures should be the new Master. So even his amplituhedron findings may have been done due to Nima's excitement about the "spacetime is doomed" paradigm, I think that the final amplituhedron findings don't really bring us any new evidence in favor of the "spacetime is doomed" reasoning. If I am right, this is not the first time in the history when important findings were stimulated by some ideology that finally turned out to be very problematic or wrong, of course. For example, Einstein's search for a new theory of gravity was importantly stimulated by Mach's principle but the final result, the general theory of relativity, doesn't really endorse Mach's principle. Ideologies may play both destructive and constructive roles but it's important to separate the science from personal emotions and histories. Someone's excitement about an ideology isn't a proof of this ideology even if this someone finds something important in science! ### Emily Lakdawalla - The Planetary Society Blog The Plumes of Europa 2013 has been a rather exciting year for Europa scientists. Today's exciting news: the Hubble Space Telescope discovery of water vapor plumes from the south pole of this icy moon. ### ZapperZ - Physics and Physicists NOvA: Building a Next Generation Neutrino Experiment A closer look at the NOvA experiment. Zz. ### ZapperZ - Physics and Physicists Dark Matter In case you are still clueless on what we call 'dark matter', this might help. Zz. ### Christian P. Robert - xi'an's og comment j’ai détesté les maths [teaser] A (French) documentary film about maths just came out on French screens this week, here is the preview/teaser (with English translation or subtitles): I have not seen {comment j’ai détesté les maths} (and do not plan to!) as this movie/documentary seems to centre on a few exotic characters like Cédric Villani and to blame the subprime crisis on the mathematical modelling used in constructing complex financial products, so cannot see how this could improve the vision outsiders have of mathematics. Rather than of mathematicians. And I have always hated the joke on the film poster (“Find X. Here it is!”), joke that adorns too many office doors in maths departments all over the World… Filed under: Kids, Statistics, University life Tagged: Cédric Villani, hypothénuse, movie review, subprime crisis ### Peter Coles - In the Dark A picture from the past! Well, here’s a blast from the past! This is the School Photograph for the School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences at the University of Sussex, vintage 1989. The School was called MAPS in those days; over the years we’ve lost an A and are now called MPS. Anyway, see if you can spot yours truly in this picture; you can click on the picture to make it larger. I did my PhD (actually DPhil) there from 1985-88 and then stayed on for a two-year postdoctoral position until 1990; so if you can spot me that’s what I looked like as a PDRA! ### The n-Category Cafe A Technical Innovation Here’s a new feature of the Café, thanks to our benevolent host Jacques Distler. If you ever want to see how someone has created some mathematical expression on this blog, there’s an easy way to do it. With Firefox, you simply double-click on the expression. Try it: $A×{B}^{A}\to BA \times B^A \to B$ or ${x}_{mn}x_\left\{m n\right\}$ or $\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 2\\ 3& 4\end{array}\right). \Biggl\left( \begin\left\{matrix\right\} 1 & 2 \\ 3 & 4 \end\left\{matrix\right\} \Biggr\right). $ A window should pop up showing the TeX source. With other browsers, I’m not so sure. Try double-clicking. If that doesn’t work, then, according to Jacques’s instructions, you “bring up the MathJax context-menu for the formula, and choose Show Math As $\to \to$ Annotation $\to \to$ TeX”. I don’t know how one brings up this menu. Does anyone else know? (Update: you right-click. Thanks to those who responded.) Once you’ve made the TeX source appear, you can cut and paste to your heart’s content. Of course, most users here are fluent in LaTeX. But like most math-oriented websites, we use a variant of TeX that’s a little different from standard LaTeX, so this should turn out to be a helpful feature. ### Symmetrybreaking - Fermilab/SLAC Neutrino detector block A close look at the assembly of the NOvA near detector reveals a massive yet meticulous process. When the sun rises over Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory each morning, it beams down on a relatively unchanging landscape: 10 square miles of prairie dotted with various lab buildings. On most days, not much stirs that early in the morning. Some days, though, the sunrise coincides with a big event at Fermilab: NOvA block moving day. NOvA is Fermilab’s largest neutrino experiment. It features two large detectors, one of which is located at Fermilab and is made up of eight 23,411-pound plastic blocks each measuring about 15 feet high, 15 feet wide and 6 feet thick. ### arXiv blog First Lasing Nanofibres Open the Way for Cheap, Soft Laser Textiles By adding laser dyes to organic fibers, researchers have demonstrated a technique that should lead to textiles that lase at all visible frequencies. ### Peter Coles - In the Dark Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu Lots of researchers post PDFs of their own papers on their own web-sites. It's always been so, because even though technically it's in breach of the copyright transfer agreements that we blithely sign, everyone knows it's right and proper. Preventing people from making their own work available would be insane, and the publisher that did it would be committing a PR gaffe of huge proportions. Read more… 494 more words Yet another example of an academic publisher (Elsevier) acting in a manner clearly detrimental to research. ### Emily Lakdawalla - The Planetary Society Blog My Cosmos review will be delayed this week A variety of AGU matters and unexpected political work and coverage will delay the Cosmos reviews by a week. ### Emily Lakdawalla - The Planetary Society Blog Enceladus huffs and puffs: plumes vary with orbital longitude In which I finally get around to writing about a paper published last August: Enceladus' plumes sometimes spout more and sometimes spout less, depending on where Enceladus is in its orbit. This discovery was enabled by Cassini's longevity at Saturn, and we'll be able to follow up on it, as long as Cassini is allowed to complete its mission. ## December 11, 2013 ### Christian P. Robert - xi'an's og ABC with composite score functions My friends Erlis Ruli, Nicola Sartori and Laura Ventura from Università degli Studi de Padova have just arXived a new paper entitled Approximate Bayesian Computation with composite score functions. While the paper provides a survey of composite likelihood methods, the core idea of the paper is to use the score function (of the composite likelihood) as the summary statistic, $\dfrac{\partial\,c\ell(\theta;y)}{\partial\,\theta},$ when evaluated at the maximum composite likelihood at the observed data point. In the specific (but unrealistic) case of an exponential family, an ABC based on the score is asymptotically (i.e., as the tolerance ε goes to zero) exact. The choice of the composite likelihood thus induces a natural summary statistics and, as in our empirical likelihood paper, where we also use the score of a composite likelihood, the composite likelihoods that are available for computation are usually quite a few, thus leading to an automated choice of a summary statistic.. An interesting (common) feature in most examples found in this paper is that comparisons are made between ABC using the (truly) sufficient statistic and ABC based on the pairwise score function, which essentially relies on the very same statistics. So the difference, when there is a difference, pertains to the choice of a different combination of the summary statistics or, somehow equivalently to the choice of a different distance function. One of the examples starts from our MA(2) toy-example in the 2012 survey in Statistics and Computing. The composite likelihood is then based on the consecutive triplet marginal densities. As shown by the picture below, the composite version improves to some extent upon the original ABC solution using three autocorrelations. A suggestion I would have about a refinement of the proposed method deals with the distance utilised in the paper, namely the sum of the absolute differences between the statistics. Indeed, this sum is not scaled at all, neither for regular ABC nor for composite ABC, while the composite likelihood perspective provides in addition to the score a natural metric through the matrix A(θ) [defined on page 12]. So I would suggest comparing the performances of the methods using instead this rescaling since, in my opinion and in contrast with a remark on page 13, it is relevant in some (many?) settings where the amount of information brought by the composite model widely varies from one parameter to the next. Filed under: Books, pictures, Statistics, University life Tagged: ABC, composite likelihood, empirical likelihood, exponential families, likelihood-free methods, Padova, PNAS, tolerance ### Emily Lakdawalla - The Planetary Society Blog AGU 2013: Citizen Science in the Era of Big Data On Friday at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco, I'm co-chairing an oral session titled "ED51: Era of Citizen Science: Intersection of Outreach, Scientific Research and Big Data." It's about the myriad ways in which members of the public are making positive contributions to science. ### The Great Beyond - Nature blog FDA institutes voluntary rules on farm antibiotics The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a set of guidelines intended to curb the widespread use of antibiotics for livestock, which contributes to the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria (see Nature‘s feature story ‘MRSA: Farming up trouble’). But some worry that the voluntary nature of the rules — and their many loopholes — will do little to fix the problem. Pharmaceutical companies that choose to comply with the FDA’s new rules will change the labels on their drugs so that they cannot be used for promoting animals’ growth. A second rule requires the involvement of a veterinarian in prescribing the drugs. The rules were announced 11 December, and companies now have 90 days in which to tell the FDA whether they plan to comply. In a phone conference this morning, Michael Taylor, deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine at the FDA, told reporters that some drug manufacturers have already said that they will adopt the rules. He indicated that after the 90 days have elapsed, the agency could find ways to crack down on individual companies that are not cooperating, even though the rules are voluntary. Laura Rogers, health director at the Pew Charitable Trusts, says that agency pressure is not the only reason most companies will comply; companies also have an incentive in maintaining the efficacy of their antibiotics used in people. “Drug companies that sell these products need them to work just as much as we want them to work in human medicine,” she says. If companies change their labels, prescribing the drugs for growth promotion will technically become illegal. But farmers will still be able to obtain the drugs and add them to animal feed to prevent disease outbreak. “FDA’s policy is an early holiday gift to industry,” said Avinash Kar, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco, California, in a statement. “[It] covers only some of the many uses of antibiotics on animals that are not sick.” Although she praises the new rule as a first step, Rogers says that the United States still has a long way to go before catching up with other countries. The Netherlands has reduced its livestock antibiotic use by 50% since 2009 by banning widespread prophylactic use, and Denmark monitors antibiotic use on individual farms. Rogers says that it will be key in the coming years for the FDA and the US Department of Agriculture to monitor whether the laws affect the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in food. She also wants the agencies to address other factors such as crowded housing conditions on farms that allow these bacteria to spread. ### Emily Lakdawalla - The Planetary Society Blog Quick Chang'e 3 and Mars Orbiter Mission updates Yesterday Chang'e 3 lowered its orbit periapsis to a mere 15 kilometers, and Mars Orbiter Mission successfully performed a trajectory correction maneuver. ### Christian P. Robert - xi'an's og art brut Filed under: pictures Tagged: France, night sky, Versailles ### Symmetrybreaking - Fermilab/SLAC Exhibit brings the LHC to London Visitors to London’s Science Museum can now take a simulated tour of CERN and the Large Hadron Collider. The largest scientific experiment ever constructed has claimed some new territory—about 8600 square feet in South Kensington, London. The Large Hadron Collider, housed at CERN laboratory on the border of France and Switzerland, is the focus of a new exhibit called Collider in London’s Science Museum. Visitors, each armed with an all-access pass, are swept into a multimedia exploration of the 60-year-old laboratory, complete with full-size reconstructions of sights below and above ground. ### Matt Strassler - Of Particular Significance What’s the Status of the LHC Search for Supersymmetry? It’s been quite a while (for good reason, as you’ll see) since I gave you a status update on the search for supersymmetry, one of several speculative ideas for what might lie beyond the known particles and forces. Specifically, supersymmetry is one option (the most popular and most reviled, perhaps, but hardly the only one) for what might resolve the so-called “naturalness” puzzle, closely related to the “hierarchy problem” — Why is gravity so vastly weaker than the other forces? Why is the Higgs particle‘s mass so small compared to the mass of the lightest possible black hole? Click here to read more about the current situation… Filed under: LHC News, Particle Physics Tagged: atlas, cms, LHC, supersymmetry ### astrobites - astro-ph reader's digest Where is that galaxy pointing? Gravitational lensing is the deflection of the trajectory of a photon by gravity, and it is a natural consequence of the theory of General Relativity. A photon that would normally travel in a straight line bends its trajectory when it passes near a massive object. One of the wonderful things about gravitational lensing is that it helps us understand the properties of dark matter in the Universe. This paper is concerned with a regime called “weak lensing” and with finding new methods to measure this effect. To understand what we mean by weak lensing, consider the following example. You look at the sky and you see a galaxy. Behind that galaxy, at higher redshift, there is another galaxy, which we will assume that looks just perfectly round as an example. The photons from the background galaxy travel through the Universe to us and along the way, they encounter the foreground galaxy, which deflects them a little bit from their original path. As a consequence, when we see the galaxy in the background, it no longer appears round. Lensing has changed its shape to make it look more elliptical. The picture below shows a slightly more complicated example, where there is an ensemble of background galaxies being lensed by a cluster of galaxies. A cluster is a dense place in the Universe where many galaxies are grouped together with dark matter. Lensing by the cluster makes the shapes of the galaxies in the background look more elliptical around it. Gravitational lensing by a cluster of galaxies (the black blob). Photons from the galaxies in the background (projected to the left of the figure) are deviated from a straight path, making the background galaxies look more elliptical around the cluster when we see them from the right. You can locate some specific examples in the galaxies with black contours and see how lensing changes their ellipticities and orientations so that they look like they are wrapping around the cluster (projected in yellow). In the figure above, you can see that because background galaxies change their ellipticities due to gravitational lensing, and because they do so in a preferential direction, they also change the direction in which they are pointing. Typically, in a case as described in the figure above, one would be able to measure the mass of a cluster by measuring the ellipticities of the galaxies in the background. Because lensing is “weak”, many galaxies are needed to obtain an accurate measurement. The authors of the paper propose that we need not measure ellipticities of galaxies, which are very hard to obtain; instead, they suggest that the same information can be obtained from the orientation angles of galaxies and construct a statistical method to achieve this goal. In addition, they suggest that measuring the orientation angle of a galaxy is easier than measuring its ellipticity, which requires a precise calibration and an exquisite understanding of the properties of the telescope that took the image. A test of the input shear and the difference between the input and recovered shear. This test shows that the method of measuring galaxy orientations to recover the shear works very well. (Fig. 3 of Whittaker et al.) To test their method, the authors use both simulations and observations. First, they simulate a set of galaxies that have been lensed. The degree of lensing is described by the “shear”, gamma, which represents the change in the original ellipticity of the galaxy after its been lensed. They simulate galaxies that have been sheared by a known amount and apply their proposed method of measuring orientation angles to retrieve the shear. In the figure to the right, the points are the simulated data. The green line is the ideal result and the black line is the best fit to the points, which is overall consistent with zero within the uncertainties. The authors also work out some modifications to their method when position angles cannot be measured perfectly. While in this case there is a systematic deviation from the true shear (“noise bias”), it can be accounted for. One important aspect of the method they propose in this paper is that it not only uses position angles, it also requires knowledge of the overall properties of the shapes of galaxies. This means that they need to know how many galaxies there are with a given ellipticity. A map of the matter (dark and luminous) that is lensing background galaxies in one of the CFHTLenS fields using the position angle method. Because lensing is due to all the matter, dark and luminous, it helps us understand what the Universe is made of. (Fig. 15 of Whittaker et al.) From black to yellow we go to higher mass densities and more lensing. Once the method has been validated, they run it on a cosmological simulation, a simulation of the distribution of dark matter in the Universe, and on real data from the CFHTLenS, which maps the ellipticities of galaxies across large areas in the sky (see this astrobite). In both, they attempt to reconstruct the distribution of matter by applying their method and also by applying the more common method of measuring galaxy ellipticities. They find that the two methods are consistent with each other and that the position angle method gives better constraints on the reconstructed matter field. In the case of the data, this amounts to a 20% smaller uncertainties for the position angle method. The figure to the left shows the reconstructed mass density field from the CFHTLenS. We are at the verge of many interesting applications of weak gravitational lensing. This ability to locate dark matter lets us understand more about the properties of the Universe. In the upcoming years, many telescopes will dedicate a large amount of their time to measure the shapes of galaxies and to map the matter in our Universe. This paper proposes a new method for reconstructing a map of matter in our Universe, by using position angles of galaxies. It is only the beginning. ### arXiv blog How Internet-Style Routing For Gas Could Dramatically Improve Europe's Energy Security Routing gas around Europe using the same decentralised control techniques developed for the internet could reduce the way energy crises cascade, say network and complexity theorists. ### Peter Coles - In the Dark Boycott Nature and Science! On Tuesday Randy Schekman, joint winner of the 2013 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine hit out at academic publishers for the way the most “prestigious” journals (specifically Cell, Nature and Science) publish only the “flashiest” research. I see his announcement as part of a groundswell of opinion that scientists are being increasingly pressured to worry more about the impact factors of the journals they publish in than about the actual science that they do. Cynics have been quick to point out that his statements have emerged only after he received the Nobel Prize, and that it’s difficult for younger researchers who have to build their careers in a world to break free from the metrics that are strangling many disciplines. I feel, as do some of my colleagues (such as Garret Cotter of Oxford University), that it’s time for established researchers to make a stand and turn away from those publishers that we feel are having a negative impact on science and instead go for alternative modes of publication that are in better keeping with the spirit of open science. In future, therefore, I’ll be boycotting Nature and Science (I don’t publish in Cell anyway) and I call upon my colleagues to do likewise. Here’s a nice logo (courtesy of Garrett Cotter) that you might find useful should you wish to support the boycott. ps. For the record I should point out that during my career I have published four papers in Nature and one in Science. ### The n-Category Cafe Severing Ties with the NSA Updated on 11 Dec 2013: see end of post. A letter from Chicago mathematician Sasha Beilinson in this month’s Notices of the American Mathematical Society calls for the AMS to sever all ties with the US National Security Agency, citing the vast secret spying programs of the NSA that wildly exceed anything conspiracy theorists could imagine. He lists some of the ways in which the AMS and NSA support each other, and issues a call for action: What should be done is a question not only for US citizens but also for people all over the world: the NSA destroyed the security of the Internet and privacy of communications for the whole planet. But if any healing is possible, it would probably start with making the NSA and its ilk socially unacceptable — just as, in the days of my youth, working for the KGB was socially unacceptable for many in the Soviet Union. I’m now wondering about the relationship between the LMS (London Mathematical Society, the British counterpart of the AMS) and GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters, the British counterpart of the NSA). While GCHQ may employ fewer people, it has the inestimable advantage of not being constrained by that bothersome US constitution: We have a light oversight regime compared with the US, according to GCHQ lawyers, which is really saying something. Moreover, it is considered by some to be more extreme in its surveillance of the general population than even the NSA. So, I’ve written to the president and vice-presidents of the LMS asking about its — or rather, “our”, as I’m a member — relationship with GCHQ. I’d like to know the facts. It may be that there’s no significant relationship, and that’s the answer I’d like to hear; but at present I simply don’t know. What we do as mathematicians seldom has any contact with politics or human affairs. But this is one of those occasions. The NSA and GCHQ must be two of the largest employers of mathematicians in the world. Whatever you think of the ongoing mass surveillance, it can’t be denied that this is an issue that involves, and will continue to involve, our community. Added later: Since we don’t usually have this kind of discussion here, let me make explicit what kind of thing I’m going to allow: 1. Discussion of the NSA and GCHQ is fine. That’s what this is about. Both places employ large numbers of mathematicians, and mathematics is involved in the mass surveillance programs — especially in the breaking and circumvention of online encryption. This is the relevance to the mathematical community. 2. The closer the discussion sticks to those issues that concern mathematicians, the better. If it strays too far away, I may steer it back (possibly using the “delete” button). 3. Please try to keep the temperature down. Good ways of doing this are to provide linked references and not to appeal to emotions. 4. The obvious stuff: no insults etc. (but I hope I don’t need to say that here). I’ll simply delete objectionable comments. In short, please write thoughtfully, and please focus on the central issue: cooperation between the NSA/GCHQ and mathematicians. Added on 11 Dec 2013: I have now heard back informally from someone who was at the latest LMS Council meeting. (The Council is made up of academics and “is responsible for determining the strategy and policy of the Society”.) Apparently, there was unanimous agreement that the LMS should at least be transparent about this, and should state publicly what connections there are between the LMS and GCHQ. (For example, GCHQ part-funds LMS instructional courses for graduate students.) I don’t know whether there was agreement on anything else, as I haven’t had an official response yet. ### Sean Carroll - Preposterous Universe Nobel Day Today was the Nobel Prize ceremony, including of course the Physics Prize to François Englert and Peter Higgs. Congratulations once again to them! (Parenthetically, it’s sad that the Nobel is used to puff up national pride. In Belgium, Englert gets into the headline but not Higgs; in the UK, it’s the other way around.) I of course had nothing to do with the physics behind this year’s Nobel, but I did write a book about it, so I’ve had a chance to do a little commentating here and there. I wrote a short piece for The Independent that tries to place the contribution in historical context. I’ve had a bit of practice by now in talking about this topic to general audiences, so consider this the distillation of the best I can do! (It’s a UK newspaper, so naturally only Higgs is mentioned in the headline.) I love how, at the bottom of the story, you can register your level of agreement, from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” And if you prefer your words spoken aloud, here I am on the BBC talking about the book. Meanwhile here at Caltech, we welcomed back favorite son Murray Gell-Mann (who spends his days at the Santa Fe Institute these days) for the 50th anniversary of quarks. One of the speakers, Geoffrey West, pointed out that no Nobel was awarded for the idea of quarks. Gell-Mann did of course win the Nobel in 1969, but that was “for his contributions and discoveries concerning the classification of elementary particles and their interactions”. In other words, strangeness, SU(3) flavor symmetry, the Eightfold Way, and the prediction of the Omega-minus particle. (Other things Gell-Mann helped invent: kaon mixing, the renormalization group, the sigma model for pions, color and quantum chromodynamics, the seesaw mechanism for neutrino masses, and the decoherent histories approach to quantum mechanics. He is kind of a big deal.) But, while we now understand SU(3) flavor symmetry in terms of the quark model (the up/down/strange quarks are all light compared to the QCD scale, giving rise to an approximate symmetry), the idea of quarks itself wasn’t honored by the 1969 prize. If it had been, the prize certainly would have been shared by George Zweig, who proposed the idea independently. So there’s still time to give out the Nobel for the quark model! Perhaps Gell-Mann and Zweig could share it with Harald Fritzsch, who collaborated with Gell-Mann on the invention of color and QCD. (The fact that QCD is asymptotically free won a prize for Gross, Politzer and Wilczek in 2004, but there hasn’t been a prize for the invention of the theory itself.) Modern particle physics has such a rich and fascinating history, we should honor it as accurately as possible. ### The Great Beyond - Nature blog Patent database of 15 million chemical structures goes public The internet’s wealth of free chemistry data just got significantly larger. Today, the European Bioinformatics Institute (EBI) has launched a website — www.surechembl.org — that allows anyone to search through 15 million chemical structures, extracted automatically by data-mining software from world patents. The initiative makes public a 4-terabyte database that until now had been sold on a commercial basis by a software firm, SureChem, which is folding. SureChem has agreed to transfer its information over to the EBI — and to allow the institute to use its software to continue extracting data from patents. “It is the first time a world patent chemistry collection has been made publicly available, marking a significant advance in open data for use in drug discovery,” says a statement from Digital Science — the company that owned SureChem, and which itself is owned by Macmillan Publishers, the parent company of Nature Publishing Group. Under the agreement, Digital Science retains use of the SureChem software; the company is being wound up because Macmillan wants to focus on serving researchers, not commercial clients such as drug firms, says SureChem’s co-founder, Nicko Goncharoff. “We are delighted to take on the stewardship of this resource,” says John Overington, head of computational chemical biology at the EBI, which is part of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Hinxton, UK. “Scientists are accustomed to doing literature searches, but the patent literature is often where the real gems lie — especially in translational science,” he adds. Published papers lag the patent literature by about two years, he points out. Overington says that the EBI plans to interlock information on chemical compounds from different public resources. For example, a search on a compound such as Pfizer’s Viagra (sildenafil) will reveal its presence in patents (from SureChemBL), as well as its interactions with potential protein drug targets (from databases such as the EBI’s ChemBL, which catalogues experiments done on compounds). Later, Overington hopes to apply SureChem software to extract structures mentioned in research papers, starting with open-access papers held in repositories such as Europe PubMed Central. But, he adds, reconstruction of chemical data from papers is harder, because structures are often not named or pictured explicitly, but only alluded to as variants on a common molecular skeleton. Historically, chemists have not had a wealth of free online data, and have been used to paying to get information from private databases. SureChem released data on 10 million molecules into the public database PubChem last year, but the information was restricted (as the information on links to patents could only downloaded one molecule at a time). But the web’s resources of searchable public chemical data are fast expanding. “I think it’s a really exciting time for chemistry,” Overington says. ## December 10, 2013 ### astrobites - astro-ph reader's digest Pinpointing Stellar Properties with Bayesian Statistics The link between a pile of data and a physical explanation is the fun part. Astronomers spend countless hours gathering data, and countless more thinking up physical models for different pieces of the Universe. But reconciling these two things—finding a model that not only agrees with observations, but is the sole likely explanation—isn’t easy. Consider the spectrum of a star. Depending on the star’s temperature, surface gravity, and chemical composition—also known as metallicity—a spectrum can look different in subtle ways. To characterize a star based on its spectrum, a common technique is to create many theoretical model spectra. Then, you use another tool to decide which model spectrum best matches your observed spectrum. Once you pick one, that model’s values for temperature, surface gravity, and metallicity are used for the star you observed. In a general sense, this is straightforward. But in reality, it can get messy quickly. What if there are more than three properties I need to model? What if I observed the star more than once? What if I use two different programs to create model spectra and they don’t agree? What if my observed spectra are noisy, or from different telescopes and instruments? What if more than one model matches equally well with my observation? And how do I decide which model “best matches” my observation, anyway? A new way to derive physical parameters from spectra In this paper, Schönrich and Bergemann present a whole new suite of tools to address this common task. Instead of fitting one model to one spectrum, with custom answers to all of the previous questions on a case-by-case basis, they take a step back and whip out some Bayesian statistics. Instead of asking, “Which model fits the data best?” they ask, “Given a set of observations, what combination of physical parameters is most probable to exist?” To answer this question, they show how to calculate a Bayesian probability distribution function (PDF) for many parameters at a time. Think of each parameter as an axis on a graph: for two parameters, like temperature and surface gravity, the PDF could be plotted on a piece of paper. For three parameters, you would need a 3D graph. The same math lets you consider an arbitrarily large number of parameters at once, even if you can’t visualize a graph of it. And for each source of data that constrains the problem (an observed spectrum, or even photometry), a new multi-dimensional PDF can be generated. These PDFs can then be combined to yield an overall most-likely solution. Probability density functions (PDFs) for one star. In three of four panels, probability (log(P)) is shown in color in the surface gravity (log(g)) vs. temperature (T) plane. Top left: PDF based on photometry and a stellar evolution model. Top right: PDF based on spectroscopy. Bottom left: combination to make the overall PDF. Bottom right: expected metallicity from the photometry + stellar evolution model PDF (dots), and from the spectroscopy PDF (colored area). The most likely solution is the one with log(P) closest to 0 (probability closest to 1). Bayes on trial This sounds great in theory, but how is it in practice? To test this, Schönrich and Bergemann apply their method to both high- and low-resolution spectra from different instruments. For two samples of stars, they look at how the derived temperatures T, surface gravities log(g), and metallicities [Fe/H] line up with physically realistic expectations. Both samples of stars were previously analyzed using a more conventional method. They find that the new Bayesian technique consistently does a better job, because it doesn’t have any stars in so-called “unphysical” locations in the T-log(g)-[Fe/H] parameter space. In both cases, the stars better populate the Main Sequence with the new method, and they more consistently follow lines of constant age (called isochrones). A comparison of the Bayesian method vs. traditional modeling for two samples of stars. (Dots on each plot represent stars, while the lines are isochrones for reference). The low-resolution spectra are on the left, and the high-resolution sample is on the right. The new technique is shown in the top panes. For both samples, stars in unphysical positions—not roughly consistent with the isochrones—disappear with the Bayesian method, whereas they are present in both reference samples. A widely-applicable, robust technique The tools presented in this paper are useful for many situations, from simple cases like the opening example—understanding a single star—to analyzing huge datasets from surveys in a consistent manner. The authors even suggest that the same Bayesian framework could be used to include other datasets that constrain physical quantities: astrometry, interferometry, and asteroseismology, to name a few. Beyond being widely-applicable, the authors emphasize that their method has advantages over other available approaches. It can consider all observational and theoretical data available for a star, it is robust with respect to low-quality or missing data, it handles uncertainties well by considering the full multi-dimensional PDF, and it is well-suited for comparing data from different surveys to one another. ### astrobites - astro-ph reader's digest The Little Star that Could (Teach us about Stellar Astrophysics) Title: A Small Star with Large Proper Motion. Author: E. E. Barnard (1857-1923) Affiliation: University of Chicago The History How completely has the study of astronomy change in 100 years? For today’s Astrophysical Classic let’s find out by looking back to 1916 and the journal “Popular Astronomy.” In this issue is a letter, written in the first person (as was common), explaining some recent observations obtained with the six-inch Bruce lens at Yerkes Observatory. Mr. Barnard (not Doctor! although a professor of astronomy, his only degree was an honorary one) writes that he noticed a star on one of his photographic plates taken in May 1916 that did not appear on a plate from 1894. Similarly, he also noticed a star 4 arcminutes (about 1/10 the moon’s diameter) away, which only appeared in the 1894 image. Curious! By analyzing previously obtained images of the region, he found additional “variable” stars that only appeared in one frame each—and they all appeared along a line! Image from Barnard’s paper, showing the movement of the newly discovered star in time, between point A (1894) and B (1916). a, C, and D correspond to known stars in the field. You can probably guess Barnard’s conclusion: all these stars are actually the same star, with an observed proper motion causing it to move across the sky. Even back in 1916, it was known that stars have some velocity relative to each other in space, which we observe as a radial velocity (motion towards or away from us) and a proper motion (motion across the sky). So why is this paper a classic? Well, Barnard estimated a proper motion of 10 arcseconds per year (without any listed error bars). This smashed the previous proper motion record of 8.7 arcseconds per year. In fact, this star is still the record holder, with a refined measurement of 10.37 arcseconds per year. Moreover, Barnard noted that a spectroscopic analysis makes this star an M-dwarf, and from the measured parallax estimated a distance to the star of 16.3 light years (yes, the paper gives results in light years). Again, there are no uncertainties listed. “Barnard’s Star,” as it came to be known, was later found to be at a distance of only 1.8 parsec (6.0 light years) making it the second closest stellar system to our own (after the Alpha Centauri system) and the closest system in the northern hemisphere. Why We Care Understanding stars is immensely important to understanding all of astronomy. If you are studying galaxies, you are studying the integrated light of millions or billions of stars, so you better understand the stars in the galaxies. If you’re studying the interstellar medium, it’s important to understand how it’s affected by the surrounding luminous stars. Those that study extrasolar planets infer their properties from observations of the planet host stars. But as fundamental as stars are to all of astronomy, we don’t really know what’s happening inside them. To help, we rely on theoretical stellar models, which use physics to help convert observable parameters (brightness, color, temperature) into physical parameters (mass, radius, age, metal content). For the models to correspond to reality, we require “benchmark” objects with known physical properties. The Sun is one of these: a star with the same brightness and temperature of the Sun should definitely correspond to an object with a mass and radius equal to our star. Indeed, stellar models tend to agree pretty well in this regime. For other spectral types, eclipsing binary stars are often used to calibrate models: the eclipses provide measurements of the stellar radii, while follow-up radial velocity observations can provide stellar masses. However, the further one retreats from solar-type stars, the less the models agree. Moreover, dwarf stars not in binaries are expected to be fundamentally different than their binary brethren! Since the vast majority of eclipsing binaries have short orbital periods, we expect the stars to be tidally locked and interacting magnetically. Theoretically, this should inflate the radii of these small stars. Therefore, not only do we not have much data to calibrate our models, but we think our data may be fundamentally incorrect! Barnard’s Star to the Rescue! To solve this problem, we really need “field” (not binary) stars for which we can measure fundamental parameters. Luckily, since Barnard’s star is so close, even though it has a very small radius, it has a very large angular diameter, meaning we can actually measure the size of its surface with an interferometer. In 2001, astronomers used the Palomar Testbed Interferometer to measure Barnard’s star’s radius as 0.201±0.008 solar radii. In 2009, the Very Large Telescope Interferometer has improved this measurement to 0.1960\pm;0.0008 solar radii, making it the most precise direct radius measurement of a field M-dwarf. With other careful measurements of its luminosity and temperature, Barnard’s star is far and away the best-characterized star of its spectral type. New stellar atmospheric models must take this precisely measured point into account, allowing the very low-mass end of the stellar spectrum to be tightly constrained for the first time. Since there are more stars of the same spectral type as Barnard’s (M4) than any other spectral type, this is an important type of star to understand! Barnard’s star doesn’t just teach us about stars as a population; it can also teach us about individual systems. Recently, the Kepler telescope detected signatures of small transiting exoplanets one of its target stars. However, the Kepler team was not sure how small the star was, meaning they were not sure how small the planets were! Fortunately, some astute astronomers collected a spectrum of this system (shown below), and noticed that its spectrum was nearly identical to that of Barnard’s star! They were then able to extrapolate the properties of this new star system from the properties of Barnard’s star, and found the star (and therefore the planets) were much smaller than the Kepler team’s best guess. In fact, the smallest planet was the size of Mars, and at the time was the smallest exoplanet known. When the authors published their paper, they paid tribute to tiny Barnard’s star in the title of their article. Their paper was titled “A Small Star with Large Proper Motion and Three Small Planets,” a play on Barnard’s original title. The spectrum of Barnard’s star is nearly identical to that of “Kepler Object of Interest 961,” enabling researchers to characterize the star by mapping Barnard’s Star’s known stellar properties to the spectrum of this star. Barnard passed away only seven years after the discovery of his eponymous star, and his discovery paper wouldn’t even be cited once until 1975. However, in the present era of precise stellar characterization, Barnard’s star will be a key instrument in helping us characterize the low-mass end of the stellar spectrum, allowing us to understand diminutive stars both in and outside our galaxy like never before. ### Christian P. Robert - xi'an's og beyond Kingman’s coalescent Three of my colleagues at Warwick, Jere Koskela, Paul Jenkins, and Dario Spanò, just arXived a paper entitled computational inference beyond Kingman’s coalescent. The paper is rather technical (for me) but the essence is in extending Kingman’s coalescent, used to model population genetic evolutions from a common ancestor. And in proposing importance samplers that apply to those extensions and that compare (favourably) with the reference importance sampler of Stephens and Donnelly (2000, JRSS Series B, Read Paper). The processes under study are called Λ-coalescent (“which allows for multiple mergers but only permits one merger at a time”) and Ξ-coalescent (“which permits any number of simultaneous, multiple mergers”). As in Stephens and Donnelly (2000), the authors derive optimal conditional (importance) sampling distributions. Which are approximated to achieve manageable proposals. The importance sampler performs better than Stephen’s and Donnelly’s (2000) when the model is not a Kingman’s coalescent. There is also a comparison with an alternative approach based on products of approximate conditionals (PAC), which approximate rather well the MLEs if not the likelihood functions and hence can be used as calibration tools. I obviously wonder what a comparison with ABC (and the use of PAC proposals in an empirical likelihood version) would produce in this case. Besides the appeal in studying new importance samplers in this setting, an additional feature of the paper is that Jere Koskela worked on this project as part of his MASDOC (MSc) training at Warwick, which demonstrates the excellency of this elite Master (in math and stats) programme. Filed under: Statistics ### Symmetrybreaking - Fermilab/SLAC The scale of things Geoffrey West applies his ‘physics way of thinking’ to biology and urban life. Geoffrey West continually searches for underlying principles, the universal laws that explain why things tick. For many years, that meant working on the scale of tiny things—quarks and other subatomic particles. In the past 15-plus years, West has branched out. Still using a theoretical-physics-inspired approach, he and biology colleagues developed a quantitative, predictive framework to explain why scale-related relationships occur in biology, and he has extended it to cities, cancer and other subjects. ### Peter Coles - In the Dark The Cosmic Web at Sussex Yesterday I had the honour of giving an evening lecture for staff and students at the School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences at the University of Sussex. The event was preceded by a bit of impromptu twilight stargazing with the new telescope our students have just purchased: You can just about see Venus in the second picture, just to the left of the street light. Anyway, after briefly pretending to be a proper astronomer it was down to my regular business as a cosmologist and my talk entitled The Cosmic Web. Here is the abstract: The lecture will focus on the large-scale structure of the Universe and the ideas that physicists are weaving together to explain how it came to be the way it is. Over the last few decades, astronomers have revealed that our cosmos is not only vast in scale – at least 14 billion light years in radius – but also exceedingly complex, with galaxies and clusters of galaxies linked together in immense chains and sheets, surrounding giant voids of (apparently) empty space. Cosmologists have developed theoretical explanations for its origin that involve such exotic concepts as ‘dark matter’ and ‘cosmic inflation’, producing a cosmic web of ideas that is, in some ways, as rich and fascinating as the Universe itself. And for those of you interested, here are the slides I used for your perusal: It was quite a large (and very mixed) audience; it’s always difficult to pitch a talk at the right level in those circumstances so that it’s not too boring for the people who know something already but not too challenging for those who don’t know anything at all. A couple of people walked out about five minutes into the talk, which doesn’t exactly inspire a speaker with confidence, but overall it seemed to go down quite well. Most of all, thank you to the organizers for the very nice reward of a bottle of wine! ### Christian P. Robert - xi'an's og ### Tommaso Dorigo - Scientificblogging Top Partners Wanted No, this is not an article about top models. Rather, the subject of discussion are models that predict the existence of heavy partners of the top quark. read more ### Lubos Motl - string vacua and pheno The first Amplituhedron paper is out We've been using the word "Amplituhedron" since September 2013 but only now, the first preprint with this word in the title was released: The Amplituhedron The authors, Nima Arkani-Hamed and Jaroslav Trnka ["Yuh-raw-sluff Turn-kuh" if you allow me to bastardize a Czech name), are preparing two more papers, "Into the Amplituhedron" and "Scattering Amplitudes from Positive Geometry", as well as a third paper along with Andrew Hodges, "Three Views of the Amplituhedron". The today's paper has 36 pages of JHEP $$\rm\LaTeX$$. These pages are divided to 14 short sections and it seems that one should be able to read the whole paper. So I hope that some of the TRF readers will try to look, too. ## December 09, 2013 ### arXiv blog The Emerging Technologies Shaping Future 5G Networks The fifth generation of mobile communications technology will see the end of the “cell” as the fundamental building block of communication networks. ### Andrew Jaffe - Leaves on the Line Breaking the silence (updated) My apologies for being far too busy to post. I’ll be much louder in couple of weeks once we release the Planck data — on March 21. Until then, I have to shut up and follow the Planck rules. OK, back to editing. (I’ll try to update this post with any advance information as it becomes available.) Update (on timing, not content): the main Planck press conference will be held on the morning of 21 March at 10am CET at ESA HQ in Paris. There will be a simultaneous UK event (9am GMT) held at the Royal Astronomical Society in London, where the Paris event will be streamed, followed by a local Q&A session. (There will also be a more technical afternoon session in Paris.) Probably more important for my astrophysics colleagues: the Planck papers will be posted on the ESA website at noon on the 21st, after the press event, and will appear on the ArXiV the following day, 22 March. Be sure to set aside some time next weekend! ### Andrew Jaffe - Leaves on the Line Planck 2013: the science If you’re the kind of person who reads this blog, then you won’t have missed yesterday’s announcement of the first Planck cosmology results. The most important is our picture of the cosmic microwave background itself: But it takes a lot of work to go from the data coming off the Planck satellite to this picture. First, we have to make nine different maps, one at each of the frequencies in which Planck observes, from 30 GHz (with a wavelength of 1 cm) up to 850 GHz (0.350 mm) — note that the colour scales here are the same: At low and high frequencies, these are dominated by the emission of our own galaxy, and there is at least some contamination over the whole range, so it takes hard work to separate the primordial CMB signal from the dirty (but interesting) astrophysics along the way. In fact, it’s sufficiently challenging that the team uses four different methods, each with different assumptions, to do so, and the results agree remarkably well. In fact, we don’t use the above CMB image directly to do the main cosmological science. Instead, we build a Bayesian model of the data, combining our understanding of the foreground astrophysics and the cosmology, and marginalise over the astrophysical parameters in order to extract as much cosmological information as we can. (The formalism is described in the Planck likelihood paper, and the main results of the analysis are in the Planck cosmological parameters paper.) The main tool for this is the power spectrum, a plot which shows us how the different hot and cold spots on our CMB map are distributed: In this plot, the left-hand side (low ℓ) corresponds to large angles on the sky and high ℓ to small angles. Planck’s results are remarkable for covering this whole range from ℓ=2 to ℓ=2500: the previous CMB satellite, WMAP, had a high-quality spectrum out to ℓ=750 or so; ground- and balloon-based experiments like SPT and ACT filled in some of the high-ℓ regime. It’s worth marvelling at this for a moment, a triumph of modern cosmological theory and observation: our theoretical models fit our data from scales of 180° down to 0.1°, each of those bumps and wiggles a further sign of how well we understand the contents, history and evolution of the Universe. Our high-quality data has refined our knowledge of the cosmological parameters that describe the universe, decreasing the error bars by a factor of several on the six parameters that describe the simplest ΛCDM universe. Moreover, and maybe remarkably, the data don’t seem to require any additional parameters beyond those six: for example, despite previous evidence to the contrary, the Universe doesn’t need any additional neutrinos. The quantity most well-measured by Planck is related to the typical size of spots in the CMB map; it’s about a degree, with an error of less than one part in 1,000. This quantity has changed a bit (by about the width of the error bar) since the previous WMAP results. This, in turn, causes us to revise our estimates of quantities like the expansion rate of the Universe (the Hubble constant), which has gone down, in fact by enough that it’s interestingly different from its best measurements using local (non-CMB) data, from more or less direct observations of galaxies moving away from us. Both methods have disadvantages: for the CMB, it’s a very indirect measurement, requiring imposing a model upon the directly measured spot size (known more technically as the “acoustic scale” since it comes from sound waves in the early Universe). For observations of local galaxies, it requires building up the famous cosmic distance ladder, calibrating our understanding of the distances to further and further objects, few of which we truly understand from first principles. So perhaps this discrepancy is due to messy and difficult astrophysics, or perhaps to interesting cosmological evolution. This change in the expansion rate is also indirectly responsible for the results that have made the most headlines: it changes our best estimate of the age of the Universe (slower expansion means an older Universe) and of the relative amounts of its constituents (since the expansion rate is related to the geometry of the Universe, which, because of Einstein’s General Relativity, tells us the amount of matter). But the cosmological parameters measured in this way are just Planck’s headlines: there is plenty more science. We’ve gone beyond the power spectrum above to put limits upon so-called non-Gaussianities which are signatures of the detailed way in which the seeds of large-scale structure in the Universe was initially laid down. We’ve observed clusters of galaxies which give us yet more insight into cosmology (and which seem to show an intriguing tension with some of the cosmological parameters). We’ve measured the deflection of light by gravitational lensing. And in work that I helped lead, we’ve used the CMB maps to put limits on some of the ways in which our simplest models of the Universe could be wrong, possibly having an interesting topology or rotation on the largest scales. But because we’ve scrutinised our data so carefully, we have found some peculiarities which don’t quite fit the models. From the days of COBE and WMAP, there has been evidence that the largest angular scales in the map, a few degrees and larger, have some “anomalies” — some of the patterns show strange alignments, some show unexpected variation between two different hemispheres of the sky, and there are some areas of the sky that are larger and colder than is expected to occur in our theories. Individually, any of these might be a statistical fluke (and collectively they may still be) but perhaps they are giving us evidence of something exciting going on in the early Universe. Or perhaps, to use a bad analogy, the CMB map is like the Zapruder film: if you scrutinise anything carefully enough, you’ll find things that look a conspiracy, but turn out to have an innocent explanation. I’ve mentioned eight different Planck papers so far, but in fact we’ve released 28 (and there will be a few more to come over the coming months, and many in the future). There’s an overall introduction to the Planck Mission, and papers on the data processing, observations of relatively nearby galaxies, and plenty more cosmology. The papers have been submitted to the journal A&A, they’re available on the ArXiV, and you can find a list of them at the ESA site. Even more important for my cosmology colleagues, we’ve released the Planck data, as well, along with the necessary code and other information necessary to understand it: you can get it from the Planck Legacy Archive. I’m sure we’ve only just begun to get exciting and fun science out of the data from Planck. And this is only the beginning of Planck’s data: just the first 15 months of observations, and just the intensity of the CMB: in the coming years we’ll be analysing (and releasing) more than one more year of data, and starting to dig into Planck’s observations of the polarized sky. ### Symmetrybreaking - Fermilab/SLAC Chinese collider expands particle zoo China’s Beijing Electron-Positron Collider seems to be hosting a reunion; members of a poorly understood family of particles keep popping up in their data, which may help clarify the properties of this reclusive family. While much of the world’s attention remains transfixed on the Large Hadron Collider and its discovery of the Higgs boson, a continent away, another, smaller particle accelerator is churning out particles—including at least two brand-new and completely unexpected ones. ### Matt Strassler - Of Particular Significance The Guardian’s Level-Headed Article on Fukushima [Note: If you missed Wednesday evening's discussion of particle physics involving me, Sean Carroll and Alan Boyle, you can listen to it here.] I still have a lot of work to do before I can myself write intelligently about the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, and the nuclear accident and cleanup that occurred there. (See here and here for a couple of previous posts about it.) But I did want to draw your attention to one of the better newspaper articles that I’ve seen written about it, by Ian Sample at the Guardian. I can’t vouch for everything that Sample says, but given what I’ve read and investigated myself, I think he finds the right balance. He’s neither scaring people unnecessarily, nor reassuring them that everything will surely be just fine and that there’s no reason to be worried about anything. From what I know and understand, the situation is more or less just as serious and worthy of concern as Sample says it is; but conversely, I don’t have any reason to think it is much worse than what he describes. Meanwhile, just as I don’t particularly trust anything said by TEPCO, the apparently incompetent and corrupt Japanese power company that runs and is trying to clean up the Fukushima plant, I’m also continuing to see lots of scary articles — totally irresponsible — written by people who should know better but seem bent upon frightening the public. The more wild the misstatements and misleading statements, the better, it seems. One example of this kind of fear-mongering is to be found here: http://truth-out.org/news/item/19547-fukushima-a-global-threat-that-requires-a-global-response, by Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers. It’s one piece of junk after the next: the strategy is to take a fact, take another unrelated fact, quote a non-expert (or quote an expert out of context), stick them all together, and wow! frightening!! But here’s the thing: An experienced and attentive reader will know, after a few paragraphs, to ignore this article. Why? Because it never puts anything in context. “When contact with radioactive cesium occurs, which is highly unlikely, a person can experience cell damage due to radiation of the cesium particles. Due to this, effects such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and bleeding may occur. When the exposure lasts a long time, people may even lose consciousness. Coma or even death may then follow. How serious the effects are depends upon the resistance of individual persons and the duration of exposure and the concentration a person is exposed to, experts say.” Well, how much cesium are we talking about here? Lots or a little? Ah, they don’t tell you that. [The answer: enormous amounts. There's no chance of you getting anywhere near that amount of exposure unless you yourself go wandering around on the Fukushima grounds, and go some place you're really not supposed to go. This didn't even happened to the workers who were at the Fukushima plant when everything was at its worst in March 2011. Even if you ate a fish every week from just off Japan that had a small amount of cesium in it, this would not happen to you.] Because it makes illogical statements. “Since the accident at Fukushima on March 11, 2011, three reactor cores have gone missing.” Really? Gone missing? Does that make sense? Well then, why is so much radioactive cooling water — which is mentioned later in the article — being stored up at the Fukushima site? Isn’t that water being used to keep those cores cool? And how could that happen if the cores were missing? [The cores melted; it's not known precisely what shape they are in or precisely how much of each is inside or outside the original containment vessel, but they're being successfully cooled by water, so it's clear roughly where they are. They're not "missing"; that's a wild over-statement.] Because the authors quote people without being careful to explain clearly who they are. “Harvey Wasserman, who has been working on nuclear energy issues for over 40 years,…” Is Harvey Wasserman a scientist or engineer? No. But he gets lots of press in this article (and elsewhere.) [Wikipedia says: "Harvey Franklin Wasserman (born December 31, 1945) is an American journalist, author, democracy activist, and advocate for renewable energy. He has been a strategist and organizer in the anti-nuclear movement in the United States for over 30 years." I have nothing against Mr. Wasserman and I personally support both renewable energy and the elimination of nuclear power. But as far as I know, Wasserman has no scientific training, and is not an expert on cleaning up a nuclear plant and the risks thereof... and he's an anti-nuclear activist, so you do have to worry he's going to make thing sound worse than they are. Always look up the people being quoted!] Because the article never once provides balance or nuance: absolutely everything is awful, awful, awful. I’m sorry, but things are never that black and white, or rather, black and black. There are shades of gray in the real world, and it’s important to tease them out a little bit. There are eventualities that would be really terrible, others that would be unfortunate, still others that would merely be a little disruptive in the local area — and they’re not equally bad, nor are they equally likely. [I don't get any sense that the authors are trying to help their readers understand; they're just bashing the reader over the head with one terrifying-sounding thing after another. This kind of article just isn't credible.] The lesson: one has to be a critical, careful reader, and read between the lines! In contrast to Sample’s article in the Guardian, the document by Zeese and Flowers is not intended to inform; it is intended to frighten, period. I urge you to avoid getting your information from sources like that one. Find reliable, sensible people — Ian Sample is in that category, I think — and stick with them. And I would ignore anything Zeese and Flowers have to say in the future; people who’d write an article like theirs have no credibility. Filed under: Science and Modern Society Tagged: fukushima, press, radiation, radioactivity ### Peter Coles - In the Dark Quantum Technology – a Sussex Strength Amid all the doom and gloom in the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement delivered last week there’s a ray of sunshine for research in Physics in the form of an injection of around £270 million in Quantum Technology. According to the Financial Times, The money will support a national network of five research centres, covering quantum computing, secure communications, sensors, measurement and simulation. Details of the scheme are yet to be released, but it seems the network will consist of “regional centres” although how evenly it will be spread across the regions remains to be seen. How many will be in the Midlands, for example? We’re very happy here with this announcement here in the School of Physics & Astronomy at the University of Sussex as we have a well-established and expanding major research activity in Quantum Technology and an MSc Course called Frontiers of Quantum Technology. Moreover, as members of the South East Physics Network (SEPNet) we seem to be in a good position to be for funds as a truly regional centre. Assuming, that is, that the scheme hasn’t already been divvied up behind closed doors before it was even announced! The investment announced by the government mirrors a growing realization of the potential for economic exploitation of, e.g., quantum computing which is bound to lead to a new range of career opportunities for budding physics graduates. I’d welcome any comments from people who know any more information about the details of the new investment, as I’m too lazy to search for it myself… ### Jaques Distler - Musings G2 and Spin(8) Triality Oscar Chacaltana, Yuji Tachikawa and I are deep in the weeds of nilpotent orbits. One of the things we had to study were the nilpotent orbits of ${𝔤}_{2}\mathfrak\left\{g\right\}_2$, and how they sit in $\mathrm{𝔰𝔬}\left(8\right)\mathfrak\left\{so\right\}\left(8\right)$. Understanding the answer involves an explicit description of $\mathrm{Spin}\left(8\right)Spin\left(8\right)$ triality, which I thought was kinda cute. Few people will care about the nilpotent orbits, but the bit about triality and ${G}_{2}G_2$ might be of some independent interest. So here it is. $\mathrm{Spin}\left(8\right)Spin\left(8\right)$ has a triality symmetry (an outer autmomorphism of the Lie algebra), which permutes the three 8-dimensional irreducible representations: ${8}_{v}8_v$, ${8}_{s}8_s$, and ${8}_{c}8_c$. ${𝔤}_{2}\subset \mathrm{𝔰𝔬}\left(8\right)\mathfrak\left\{g\right\}_2\subset \mathfrak\left\{so\right\}\left(8\right)$ is the invariant subalgebra. (I’ll conveniently pass back and forth between the complex form of the Lie algebra and the compact real form of the group, as both are of interest to us.) What I want to do is describe that triality symmetry very explicitly and, thereby, the realization of ${𝔤}_{2}\mathfrak\left\{g\right\}_2$. Note that $\mathrm{Spin}\left(8\right)Spin\left(8\right)$ contains an $\left({\mathrm{SU}\left(2\right)}^{4}\right)/{ℤ}_{2}\left(\left\{SU\left(2\right)\right\}^4\right)/\mathbb\left\{Z\right\}_2$ subgroup, under which the adjoint decomposes as $28=\left(3,1,1,1\right)+\left(1,3,1,1\right)+\left(1,1,3,1\right)+\left(1,1,1,3\right)+\left(2,2,2,2\right) 28 = \left(3,1,1,1\right)+\left(1,3,1,1\right)+\left(1,1,3,1\right)+\left(1,1,1,3\right)+\left(2,2,2,2\right) $ Under this decomposition, the action of triality is easy to describe: pick one of the $\mathrm{𝔰𝔩}\left(2\right)\mathfrak\left\{sl\right\}\left(2\right)$ subalgebras to hold fixed, and consider all permutations of the other three (supplemented by the obvious action on the $\left(2,2,2,2\right)\left(2,2,2,2\right)$). That’s triality. Looked at this way, it seems absurdly simple. The above description gives a perfectly concrete action of triality, as permutations of the generators. And we can push a little harder, and really understand ${𝔤}_{2}\mathfrak\left\{g\right\}_2$, this way. The subalgebra, invariant under the ${S}_{3}S_3$ permutations, is ${𝔤}_{2}\subset \mathrm{𝔰𝔬}\left(8\right)\mathfrak\left\{g\right\}_2\subset \mathfrak\left\{so\right\}\left(8\right)$, under which $28=14+7\otimes V 28 = 14 + 7 \otimes V $ where $VV$ is the 2-dimensional irreducible representation of ${S}_{3}S_3$. In terms of our previous decomposition, ${G}_{2}\supset \left(\mathrm{SU}\left(2\right)×{\mathrm{SU}\left(2\right)}_{D}\right)/{ℤ}_{2} G_2 \supset \left(SU\left(2\right)\times \left\{SU\left(2\right)\right\}_D\right)/\mathbb\left\{Z\right\}_2 $ where the first $\mathrm{SU}\left(2\right)SU\left(2\right)$ is the one you kept fixed, and ${\mathrm{SU}\left(2\right)}_{D}\left\{SU\left(2\right)\right\}_D$ is the diagonal $\mathrm{SU}\left(2\right)SU\left(2\right)$ of the three which are permuted by triality. Under this embedding, $\begin{array}{rl}14& =\left(3,1\right)+\left(1,3\right)+\left(2,4\right)\\ 7& =\left(1,3\right)+\left(2,2\right)\end{array} \begin\left\{split\right\} 14 &= \left(3,1\right)+\left(1,3\right)+\left(2,4\right)\\ 7 &= \left(1,3\right) + \left(2,2\right) \end\left\{split\right\} $ An explicit basis of antisymmetric $8×88\times 8$ matrices which give this ${𝔤}_{2}\mathfrak\left\{g\right\}_2$ subalgebra is as follows. First, we embed ${\mathrm{𝔰𝔩}\left(2\right)}^{4}\left\{\mathfrak\left\{sl\right\}\left(2\right)\right\}^4$, by taking the $8×88\times 8$ matrix to be block-diagonal, with $4×44\times 4$ blocks containing ${\mathrm{𝔰𝔩}\left(2\right)}^{2}\left\{\mathfrak\left\{sl\right\}\left(2\right)\right\}^2$, as $\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{rl}{H}_{L}& ={\sigma }_{2}\otimes 𝟙\\ {X}_{L}& =\frac{1}{2}\left({\sigma }_{3}+i{\sigma }_{1}\right)\otimes {\sigma }_{2}\\ {Y}_{L}& =\frac{1}{2}\left({\sigma }_{3}-i{\sigma }_{1}\right)\otimes {\sigma }_{2}={X}_{L}^{†}\end{array}& ,\phantom{\rule{2em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{2em}{0ex}}\begin{array}{rl}{H}_{R}& =𝟙\otimes {\sigma }_{2}\\ {X}_{R}& =\frac{1}{2}{\sigma }_{2}\otimes \left({\sigma }_{3}+i{\sigma }_{1}\right)\\ {Y}_{R}& =\frac{1}{2}{\sigma }_{2}\otimes \left({\sigma }_{3}-i{\sigma }_{1}\right)={X}_{R}^{†}\end{array}\end{array} \begin\left\{matrix\right\} \begin\left\{split\right\} H_L &= \sigma_2 \otimes \mathbb\left\{1\right\}\\ X_L &= \tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\} \left(\sigma_3+i\sigma_1\right) \otimes \sigma_2\\ Y_L &= \tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\} \left(\sigma_3-i\sigma_1\right) \otimes \sigma_2 = X_L^\dagger \end\left\{split\right\}&,\qquad\qquad \begin\left\{split\right\} H_R &= \mathbb\left\{1\right\} \otimes \sigma_2\\ X_R &= \tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\} \sigma_2 \otimes \left(\sigma_3+i\sigma_1\right)\\ Y_R &= \tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\} \sigma_2 \otimes \left(\sigma_3-i\sigma_1\right) = X_R^\dagger \end\left\{split\right\} \end\left\{matrix\right\} $ where we’ve chosen the normalization conventions $\begin{array}{rl}\left[X,Y\right]& =H\\ \left[H,X\right]& =2X\\ \left[H,Y\right]& =-2Y\end{array} \begin\left\{split\right\} \left[X,Y\right]&=H\\ \left[H,X\right]&=2X\\ \left[H,Y\right]&=-2Y \end\left\{split\right\} $ We pick one of these (the ${\mathrm{𝔰𝔩}\left(2\right)}_{L}\left\{\mathfrak\left\{sl\right\}\left(2\right)\right\}_L$ in the upper left-hand block) to hold fixed, and embed our second $\mathrm{𝔰𝔩}\left(2\right)\mathfrak\left\{sl\right\}\left(2\right)$ diagonally in the other three: $\begin{array}{rl}{H}_{1}& =\frac{1}{2}\left(𝟙+{\sigma }_{3}\right)\otimes {\sigma }_{2}\otimes 1\\ {X}_{1}& =\frac{1}{4}\left(𝟙+{\sigma }_{3}\right)\otimes \left({\sigma }_{3}+i{\sigma }_{1}\right)\otimes {\sigma }_{2}\\ {Y}_{1}& ={X}_{1}^{†}\\ {H}_{2}& =\frac{1}{2}\left(𝟙-{\sigma }_{3}\right)\otimes {\sigma }_{2}\otimes 𝟙+𝟙\otimes 𝟙\otimes {\sigma }_{2}\\ {X}_{2}& =\frac{1}{4}\left(𝟙-{\sigma }_{3}\right)\otimes \left({\sigma }_{3}+i{\sigma }_{1}\right)\otimes {\sigma }_{2}+\frac{1}{2}1\otimes {\sigma }_{2}\otimes \left({\sigma }_{3}+i{\sigma }_{1}\right)\\ {Y}_{2}& ={X}_{2}^{†}\end{array} \begin\left\{split\right\} H_1 &= \tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\} \left(\mathbb\left\{1\right\}+\sigma_3\right)\otimes \sigma_2 \otimes 1\\ X_1 &= \tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{4\right\} \left(\mathbb\left\{1\right\}+\sigma_3\right)\otimes \left(\sigma_3+i\sigma_1\right)\otimes\sigma_2\\ Y_1 &= X_1^\dagger\\ H_2 &= \tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\} \left(\mathbb\left\{1\right\}-\sigma_3\right)\otimes \sigma_2 \otimes \mathbb\left\{1\right\} + \mathbb\left\{1\right\}\otimes \mathbb\left\{1\right\} \otimes \sigma_2\\ X_2 &= \tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{4\right\} \left(\mathbb\left\{1\right\}-\sigma_3\right)\otimes \left(\sigma_3+i\sigma_1\right)\otimes \sigma_2 + \tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\} 1\otimes \sigma_2\otimes \left(\sigma_3+i\sigma_1\right)\\ Y_2 &= X_2^\dagger \end\left\{split\right\} $ The highest weight of the $\left(2,4\right)\left(2,4\right)$ is ${S}_{1,3}=\frac{1}{4}{\sigma }_{2}\otimes \left({\sigma }_{3}+i{\sigma }_{1}\right)\otimes \left({\sigma }_{3}+i{\sigma }_{1}\right) S_\left\{1,3\right\} = \tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{4\right\} \sigma_2\otimes \left(\sigma_3+i\sigma_1\right)\otimes \left(\sigma_3+i\sigma_1\right) $ The remaining ones, e.g., ${S}_{-1,3}=\left[{Y}_{1},{S}_{1,3}\right]S_\left\{-1,3\right\} = \left[Y_1, S_\left\{1,3\right\}\right]$, are obtained by acting with the lowering operators, ${Y}_{1,2}Y_\left\{1,2\right\}$. With this choice of Cartan, the simple roots of ${𝔤}_{2}\mathfrak\left\{g\right\}_2$ correspond to ${X}_{2}X_2$ (short root) and ${S}_{1,-3}S_\left\{1,-3\right\}$ (long root). $ Layer 1 {X}_{2}X_2 {S}_{1,-3}S_\left\{1,-3\right\} \begin\left\{svg\right\}\end\left\{svg\right\}$ This 8-dimensional representation of ${G}_{2}G_2$, as it’s reducible, is not the most convenient one for studying the representation theory of ${G}_{2}G_2$. But it’s tailor-made for our purpose, which is understanding the embedding in $\mathrm{Spin}\left(8\right)Spin\left(8\right)$. With an explicit embedding in hand, we can manufacture a distinguished triple, $\left(H,X,Y\right)\left(H,X,Y\right)$ for each nilpotent orbit of ${𝔤}_{2}\mathfrak\left\{g\right\}_2$, and see how it sits in $\mathrm{𝔰𝔬}\left(8\right)\mathfrak\left\{so\right\}\left(8\right)$. But that, probably, holds little interest for the general reader, so I’ll end here. ### Jaques Distler - Musings Normal Coordinate Expansion I’ve been spending several weeks at the Simons Center for Geometry and Physics. Towards the end of my stay, I got into a discussion with Tim Nguyen, about Ricci flow and nonlinear $\sigma \sigma$-models. He’d been reading Friedan’s PhD thesis, alongside [Kevin Costello’s book](http://www.ams.org/bookstore-getitem/item=SURV-170). So I pointed him to some old notes of mine on the normal coordinate expansion, a key ingredient in renormalizing nonlinear $\sigma \sigma$-models, using the background-field method. Then it occurred to me that the internet would be a much more useful place for those notes. So, since I have some time to kill, in JFK, here they are. Let $\varphi :\Sigma \to M\phi:\Sigma\to M$ be a map from the worldsheet, $\Sigma \Sigma$ into a Riemannian Manifold, $\left(M,g\right)\left(M,g\right)$. The NL$\sigma \sigma$M action is (1)$S={\int }_{\Sigma }\frac{1}{2}\left({\varphi }^{*}g\right)\left({\partial }_{\mu },{\partial }_{\mu }\right){d}^{2}xS= \int_\Sigma \tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\}\left(\phi^*g\right)\left(\partial_\mu,\partial_\mu\right) d^2x $ The Normal Coordinate Expansion is a particularly nice parametrization of fluctuations about the classical $\sigma \sigma$-model field $\varphi \phi$. I’ll use index-free notation, wherever possible. The Levi-Cevita connection, $\nabla \nabla$, on $MM$ is torsion-free and metric-compatible, (2)$\begin{array}{rl}{\nabla }_{X}Y-{\nabla }_{Y}X-\left[X,Y\right]& \equiv T\left(X,Y\right)=0\\ X\left(g\left(Y,Z\right)\right)& =g\left({\nabla }_{X}Y,Z\right)+g\left(Y,{\nabla }_{X}Z\right)\end{array} \begin\left\{split\right\} \nabla_X Y-\nabla_Y X-\left[X,Y\right]&\equiv T\left(X,Y\right)=0\\ X\left(g\left(Y,Z\right)\right)&=g\left(\nabla_X Y,Z\right)+g\left(Y,\nabla_X Z\right) \end\left\{split\right\} $ The Riemann curvature tensor is (3)$R\left(X,Y\right)={\nabla }_{X}{\nabla }_{Y}-{\nabla }_{Y}{\nabla }_{X}-{\nabla }_{\left[X,Y\right]} R\left(X,Y\right)=\nabla_X\nabla_Y-\nabla_Y \nabla_X-\nabla_\left\{\left[X,Y\right]\right\} $ Consider a 1-parameter family of such $\sigma \sigma$-model maps, ${\varphi }_{t}:\Sigma \to M\phi_t:\Sigma\to M$, $t\in \left[0,1\right]t\in\left[0,1\right]$ with ${\varphi }_{0}=\varphi \phi_0=\phi$, our original $\sigma \sigma$-model map. We can equally-well think about this family as a map $\stackrel{^}{\varphi }:\Sigma ×\left[0,1\right]\to M\hat\phi:\Sigma\times\left[0,1\right]\to M$, with (4)$\stackrel{^}{\varphi }\left(x,t\right)={\varphi }_{t}\left(x\right) \hat\phi\left(x,t\right)=\phi_t\left(x\right) $ Given $\stackrel{^}{\varphi }\hat\phi$, we can pull back the connection, $\nabla \nabla$, on $MM$ to a connection $\stackrel{^}{\nabla }\hat \nabla$ on $\Sigma ×\left[0,1\right]\Sigma\times \left[0,1\right]$. We don’t want to choose any old 1-parameter family, though. Let $\xi \left(x\right)\xi\left(x\right)$ be a section of the pullback tangent bundle, ${\varphi }^{*}\mathrm{TM}\phi^*TM$. We wish to choose $\stackrel{^}{\varphi }\hat\phi$ so that we can extend $\xi \left(x\right)\xi\left(x\right)$ to $\xi \left(x,t\right)\xi\left(x,t\right)$ such that (5)$\begin{array}{rl}\xi \left(x,t\right)& ={\stackrel{^}{\varphi }}_{*}\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\\ {\stackrel{^}{\nabla }}_{{\partial }_{t}}\xi & =0\end{array} \begin\left\{split\right\} \xi\left(x,t\right)&=\hat\phi_*\tfrac\left\{\partial\right\}\left\{\partial t\right\}\\ \hat\nabla_\left\{\partial_t\right\}\xi&=0 \end\left\{split\right\} $ How do we achieve this? The idea is that, given a point $x\in \Sigma x\in\Sigma$, $\xi \left(x\right)\xi\left(x\right)$ gives a tangent vector to $MM$ at the point $\varphi \left(x\right)\phi\left(x\right)$. For this “initial condition”, we solve the geodesic equation (6)$\begin{array}{c}\gamma :\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}\left[0,1\right]\to M\\ {\stackrel{¨}{\gamma }}^{k}+{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ij}}^{k}{\stackrel{˙}{\gamma }}^{i}{\stackrel{˙}{\gamma }}^{k}=0\\ \gamma \left(0\right)=\varphi \left(x\right),\phantom{\rule{2em}{0ex}}\stackrel{˙}{\gamma }\left(0\right)=\xi \left(x\right)\end{array} \begin\left\{gathered\right\} \gamma:\, \left[0,1\right]\to M\\ \ddot\left\{\gamma\right\}^k + \Gamma_\left\{ij\right\}^k \dot\left\{\gamma\right\}^i\dot\left\{\gamma\right\}^k=0\\ \gamma\left(0\right)=\phi\left(x\right),\qquad \dot\left\{\gamma\right\}\left(0\right)=\xi\left(x\right) \end\left\{gathered\right\} $ and define the point ${\varphi }_{t}\left(x\right)\in M\phi_t\left(x\right)\in M$ to be $\gamma \left(t\right)\gamma\left(t\right)$. This is guaranteed to be well-defined for small enough $tt$. We can extend it to $t=1t=1$ by considering $\xi \xi$ to be sufficiently “small”. The extension of $\xi \left(x\right)\xi\left(x\right)$ to $\xi \left(x,t\right)\xi\left(x,t\right)$ is simply the one given by parallel-transporting $\xi \xi$ along the curve $\gamma \gamma$, ${\stackrel{^}{\nabla }}_{{\partial }_{t}}\xi =0 \hat\nabla_\left\{\partial_t\right\}\xi=0 $ or, with slight abuse of notation, (7)${\nabla }_{\xi }\xi =0\nabla_\xi\xi=0 $ (This is an abuse of notation because $\xi \xi$ is not really a tensor on $MM$. We typically have points $x,x\prime \in \Sigma x,x&apos\in\Sigma$ with $\varphi \left(x\right)=\varphi \left(x\prime \right)\phi\left(x\right)=\phi\left(x&apos\right)$ but $\xi \left(x\right)\ne \xi \left(x\prime \right)\xi\left(x\right)\neq\xi\left(x&apos\right)$. This “mistake” will correct itself when we pull back to $\Sigma \Sigma$.) Since $\left[\frac{\partial }{\partial t},{\partial }_{\mu }\right]=0\Bigl\left[\tfrac\left\{\partial\right\}\left\{\partial t\right\},\partial_\mu\bigr\right]=0$ and the connection $\nabla \nabla$ is torsion-free, we can always exchange (8)${\stackrel{^}{\nabla }}_{{\partial }_{t}}v={\stackrel{^}{\nabla }}_{{\partial }_{\mu }}\xi \hat\nabla_\left\{\partial_t\right\}v =\hat\nabla_\left\{\partial_\mu\right\}\xi $ where (9)$v={\stackrel{^}{\varphi }}_{*}{\partial }_{\mu } v=\hat\phi_* \partial_\mu $ or, with the same abuse of notation, (10)${\nabla }_{\xi }v={\nabla }_{v}\xi \nabla_\xi v =\nabla_v \xi $ Taking another covariant derivative with respect to $tt$, we get the equation of geodesic deviation [1] ${\stackrel{^}{\nabla }}_{{\partial }_{t}}^{2}v={\stackrel{^}{\nabla }}_{{\partial }_{t}}{\stackrel{^}{\nabla }}_{{\partial }_{\mu }}\xi =\stackrel{^}{R}\left({\partial }_{t},{\partial }_{\mu }\right)\xi \hat\nabla_\left\{\partial_t\right\}^2v =\hat\nabla_\left\{\partial_t\right\}\hat\nabla_\left\{\partial_\mu\right\}\xi =\hat R\left(\partial_t,\partial_\mu\right)\xi $ or, in our abusive notation, (11)${\nabla }_{\xi }{\nabla }_{v}\xi =R\left(\xi ,v\right)\xi \nabla_\xi\nabla_v \xi= R\left(\xi,v\right)\xi $ Now say we wish to evaluate the $tt$-dependence of the pull-back of some tensor $TT$ on $MM$, ${\varphi }_{t\prime }^{*}T={e}^{t\prime {\stackrel{^}{\nabla }}_{{\partial }_{t}}}\left({\stackrel{^}{\varphi }}^{*}T\right){\mid }_{t=0} \phi_\left\{t&apos\right\}^* T = e^\left\{t&apos\hat\nabla_\left\{\partial_t\right\}\right\}\left(\hat\phi^*T\right)\vert_\left\{t=0\right\} $ which we can, again, write as (12)${\varphi }^{*}\left({e}^{t\prime {\nabla }_{\xi }}T\right)={\varphi }^{*}\left(T+t\prime {\nabla }_{\xi }T+\frac{t{\prime }^{2}}{2}{\nabla }_{\xi }^{2}T+\dots \right)\phi^*\left(e^\left\{t&apos\nabla_\xi\right\} T\right) = \phi^*\left(T+t&apos\nabla_\xi T +\tfrac\left\{t&apos^2\right\}\left\{2\right\}\nabla^2_\xi T +\dots\right) $ We are all set to apply this to the $\sigma \sigma$-model Lagrangian, (13)$\frac{1}{2}\left({\varphi }_{t}^{*}g\right)\left({\partial }_{\mu },{\partial }_{\mu }\right)={\varphi }_{t}^{*}\left(\frac{1}{2}g\left(v,v\right)\right) \tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\}\left(\phi_t^*g\right)\left(\partial_\mu,\partial_\mu\right) = \phi_t^*\left(\tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\} g\left(v,v\right)\right) $ We expand this using (12) and use (7),(10) and (11) to simplify the terms that result. Note that the ${n}^{\mathrm{th}}n^\left\{th\right\}$ order term in (12) is given by $\frac{1}{n}{\nabla }_{\xi }\tfrac\left\{ 1\right\}\left\{n\right\}\nabla_\xi$ of the $\left(n-1{\right)}^{\mathrm{st}}\left(n-1\right)^\left\{st\right\}$ order term. The ${0}^{\mathrm{th}}0^\left\{th\right\}$ order term is $\frac{1}{2}g\left(v,v\right) \tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\}g\left(v,v\right) $ At first order, we get $g\left(v,{\nabla }_{\xi }v\right)=g\left(v,{\nabla }_{v}\xi \right) g\left(v,\nabla_\xi v\right)= g\left(v,\nabla_v \xi\right) $ Next comes $\frac{1}{2}g\left({\nabla }_{\xi }v,{\nabla }_{v}\xi \right)+\frac{1}{2}g\left(v,{\nabla }_{\xi }{\nabla }_{v}\xi \right)=\frac{1}{2}g\left({\nabla }_{v}\xi ,{\nabla }_{v}\xi \right)+\frac{1}{2}g\left(v,R\left(\xi ,v\right)\xi \right) \tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\}g\left(\nabla_\xi v,\nabla_v \xi\right)+\tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\}g\left(v,\nabla_\xi \nabla_v \xi\right)= \tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\}g\left(\nabla_v \xi,\nabla_v \xi\right) + \tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\}g\left(v,R\left(\xi,v\right) \xi\right) $ At ${3}^{\mathrm{rd}}3^\left\{rd\right\}$ order, we get $\begin{array}{rl}\frac{1}{6}\left[2g\left({\nabla }_{v}\xi ,R\left(\xi ,v\right)\xi \right)+g\left({\nabla }_{v}\xi ,R\left(\xi ,v\right)\xi \right)& +g\left(v,\left({\nabla }_{\xi }R\right)\left(\xi ,v\right)\xi \right)+g\left(v,R\left(\xi ,{\nabla }_{v}\xi \right)\xi \right)\right]\\ & =\frac{1}{6}g\left(v,\left(\nabla R\right)\left(\xi ,\xi ,v\right)\xi \right)+\frac{2}{3}g\left({\nabla }_{v}\xi ,R\left(\xi ,v\right)\xi \right)\end{array} \begin\left\{split\right\} \tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{6\right\}\left[2g\left(\nabla_v \xi,R\left(\xi,v \right)\xi\right)+g\left(\nabla_v \xi,R\left(\xi,v\right)\xi\right)& +g\left(v,\left(\nabla_\xi R\right)\left(\xi,v\right)\xi\right) +g\left(v,R\left(\xi,\nabla_v\xi\right)\xi\right)\right]\\ &=\tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{6\right\} g\left(v,\left(\nabla R\right)\left(\xi,\xi,v\right)\xi\right) +\tfrac\left\{2\right\}\left\{3\right\}g\left(\nabla_v\xi,R\left(\xi,v\right)\xi\right) \end\left\{split\right\} $ where we used the symmetry of the Riemann tensor (14)$g\left(U,R\left(V,W\right)Z\right)=g\left(W,R\left(Z,U\right)V\right) g\left(U,R\left(V,W\right)Z\right)=g\left(W,R\left(Z,U\right)V\right) $ Finally, at ${4}^{\mathrm{th}}4^\left\{th\right\}$ order, we get $\begin{array}{rl}\frac{1}{24}\left[g\left({\nabla }_{v}\xi ,\left(\nabla R\right)\left(\xi ,\xi ,v\right)\xi \right)& +g\left(v,\left(\nabla \nabla R\right)\left(\xi ,\xi ,\xi ,v\right)\xi \right)+g\left(v,\left(\nabla R\right)\left(\xi ,\xi ,{\nabla }_{v}\xi \right)\xi \right)\right]\\ & +\frac{1}{6}\left[g\left(R\left(\xi ,v\right)\xi ,R\left(\xi ,v\right)\xi \right)+g\left({\nabla }_{v}\xi ,\left(\nabla R\right)\left(\xi ,\xi ,v\right)\xi \right)+g\left({\nabla }_{v}\xi ,R\left(\xi ,{\nabla }_{v}\xi \right)\xi \right)\right]\\ =& \frac{1}{4}g\left({\nabla }_{v}\xi ,\left(\nabla R\right)\left(\xi ,\xi ,v\right)\xi \right)+\frac{1}{6}g\left({\nabla }_{v}\xi ,R\left(\xi ,{\nabla }_{v}\xi \right)\xi \right)\\ & +\frac{1}{6}g\left(R\left(\xi ,v\right)\xi ,R\left(\xi ,v\right)\xi \right)+\frac{1}{24}g\left(v,\left(\nabla \nabla R\right)\left(\xi ,\xi ,\xi ,v\right)\xi \right)\end{array} \begin\left\{split\right\} \tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{24\right\}\left[g\left(\nabla_v \xi,\left(\nabla R\right)\left(\xi,\xi,v \right)\xi\right) &+g\left(v,\left(\nabla \nabla R\right)\left(\xi,\xi,\xi,v \right)\xi\right) +g\left(v,\left(\nabla R\right)\left(\xi,\xi,\nabla_v\xi\right)\xi\right) \right]\\ &+\tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{6\right\}\left[g\left(R\left(\xi,v\right)\xi,R\left(\xi,v\right)\xi\right) +g\left(\nabla_v \xi,\left(\nabla R\right)\left(\xi,\xi,v\right)\xi\right) +g\left(\nabla_v \xi,R\left(\xi,\nabla_v \xi\right)\xi\right)\right]\\ =&\tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{4\right\} g\left(\nabla_v \xi,\left(\nabla R\right)\left(\xi,\xi,v\right)\xi\right) +\tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{6\right\}g\left(\nabla_v \xi,R\left(\xi,\nabla_v \xi\right)\xi\right)\\ &+\tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{6\right\}g\left(R\left(\xi,v\right)\xi,R\left(\xi,v\right)\xi\right) +\tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{24\right\}g\left(v,\left(\nabla \nabla R\right)\left(\xi,\xi,\xi,v \right)\xi\right) \end\left\{split\right\} $ and so forth. Assembling all of these, we obtain (15)$\begin{array}{rl}{\varphi }_{t}^{*}\frac{1}{2}g\left(v,v\right)={\varphi }^{*}\left[\frac{1}{2}g\left(v,v\right)& +g\left(v,{\nabla }_{v}\xi \right)+\frac{1}{2}g\left({\nabla }_{v}\xi ,{\nabla }_{v}\xi \right)+\frac{1}{2}g\left(v,R\left(\xi ,v\right)\xi \right)\\ & +\frac{1}{6}g\left(v,\left(\nabla R\right)\left(\xi ,\xi ,v\right)\xi \right)+\frac{2}{3}g\left({\nabla }_{v}\xi ,R\left(\xi ,v\right)\xi \right)\\ & +\frac{1}{4}g\left({\nabla }_{v}\xi ,\left(\nabla R\right)\left(\xi ,\xi ,v\right)\xi \right)+\frac{1}{6}g\left({\nabla }_{v}\xi ,R\left(\xi ,{\nabla }_{v}\xi \right)\xi \right)\\ & +\frac{1}{6}g\left(R\left(\xi ,v\right)\xi ,R\left(\xi ,v\right)\xi \right)+\frac{1}{24}g\left(v,\left(\nabla \nabla R\right)\left(\xi ,\xi ,\xi ,v\right)\xi \right)\right]\end{array} \begin\left\{split\right\} \phi_t^*\tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\}g\left(v,v\right)=\phi^*\left[\tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\}g\left(v,v\right)& +g\left(v,\nabla_v \xi\right) +\tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\}g\left(\nabla_v \xi,\nabla_v \xi\right) + \tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\}g\left(v,R\left(\xi,v\right) \xi\right)\\ &+\tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{6\right\} g\left(v,\left(\nabla R\right)\left(\xi,\xi,v\right)\xi\right) +\tfrac\left\{2\right\}\left\{3\right\}g\left(\nabla_v\xi,R\left(\xi,v\right)\xi\right)\\ &+\tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{4\right\} g\left(\nabla_v \xi,\left(\nabla R\right)\left(\xi,\xi,v\right)\xi\right) +\tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{6\right\}g\left(\nabla_v \xi,R\left(\xi,\nabla_v \xi\right)\xi\right)\\ & +\tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{6\right\}g\left(R\left(\xi,v\right)\xi,R\left(\xi,v\right)\xi\right) +\tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{24\right\}g\left(v,\left(\nabla \nabla R\right)\left(\xi,\xi,\xi,v \right)\xi\right)\right] \end\left\{split\right\} $ Pulling back to $\Sigma \Sigma$, we obtain the desired expansion of the $\sigma \sigma$-model lagrangian. In conventional notation, replace ${v}^{i}={\partial }_{\mu }{\varphi }^{i}v^i=\partial_\mu\phi^i$, $\left({\nabla }_{v}\xi {\right)}^{i}={D}_{\mu }{\xi }^{i}\left(\nabla_v\xi\right)^i=D_\mu \xi^i$ and $g\left(U,R\left(W,Z\right)V\right)={R}_{\mathrm{ijkl}}{U}^{i}{V}^{j}{W}^{k}{Z}^{l}g\left(U,R\left(W,Z\right)V\right)=R_\left\{ijkl\right\}U^i V^j W^k Z^l$ to obtain the expressions found in Friedan [2] or Freedman et al [3]. Exercise 1: Compute the next term in the expansion, $\begin{array}{r}\frac{1}{12}g\left({\nabla }_{v}\xi ,\left(\nabla R\right)\left(\xi ,\xi ,{\nabla }_{v}\xi \right)\xi \right)+\frac{2}{15}g\left(R\left(\xi ,v\right)\xi ,R\left(\xi ,{\nabla }_{v}\xi \right)\xi \right)+\frac{1}{15}g\left({\nabla }_{v}\xi ,\left(\nabla \nabla R\right)\left(\xi ,\xi ,\xi ,v\right)\xi \right)\\ +\frac{7}{60}g\left(R\left(\xi ,v\right)\xi ,\left(\nabla R\right)\left(\xi ,\xi ,v\right)\xi \right)+\frac{1}{120}g\left(v,\left(\nabla \nabla \nabla R\right)\left(\xi ,\xi ,\xi ,\xi ,v\right)\xi \right)\end{array} \begin\left\{split\right\} \tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{12\right\}g\left(\nabla_v\xi,\left(\nabla R\right)\left(\xi,\xi,\nabla_v\xi\right)\xi\right) +\tfrac\left\{2\right\}\left\{15\right\}g\left(R\left(\xi,v\right)\xi,R\left(\xi,\nabla_v\xi\right)\xi\right) +\tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{15\right\}g\left(\nabla_v\xi,\left(\nabla\nabla R\right)\left(\xi,\xi,\xi,v\right)\xi\right)\\ +\tfrac\left\{7\right\}\left\{60\right\}g\left(R\left(\xi,v\right)\xi,\left(\nabla R\right)\left(\xi,\xi,v\right)\xi\right) +\tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{120\right\}g\left(v,\left(\nabla\nabla\nabla R\right)\left(\xi,\xi,\xi,\xi,v\right)\xi\right) \end\left\{split\right\} $ Exercise 2: Let $MM$ be the $nn$-sphere, ${S}^{n}S^n$, with the round metric, ${\mathrm{ds}}^{2}=\frac{4{r}^{2}\left(\mu \right){\mathrm{dx}}^{i}{\mathrm{dx}}^{i}}{\left(1+\mid x{\mid }^{2}{\right)}^{2}} ds^2= \frac\left\{4 r^2\left(\mu\right) dx^i dx^i\right\}\left\{\left(1+|\mathbf\left\{x\right\}|^2\right)^2\right\} $ Show that the solution to the one-loop $\beta \beta$-function equation is ${r}^{2}\left(\mu \right)={r}^{2}\left({\mu }_{0}\right)+\frac{n-1}{4\pi }\mathrm{log}\left(\mu /{\mu }_{0}\right) r^2\left(\mu\right) = r^2\left(\mu_0\right) + \frac\left\{n-1\right\}\left\{4\pi\right\}\log\left(\mu/\mu_0\right) $ [1] S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology, (Wiley, 1972) p. 148. [2] D. H. Friedan, “Nonlinear Models in $2+ϵ2+\epsilon$ Dimensions,” Ann. Phys. 163 (1985) 318. [3] L. Alvarez-Gaume, D. Z. Freedman and S. Mukhi, “The Background Field Method and the Ultraviolet Structure of the Supersymmetric Nonlinear Sigma Model,” Ann. Phys. 134 (1981) 85. ### Jaques Distler - Musings Uncertainty #### Update (10/18/2012) — Mea Culpa: Sonia pointed out to me that my (mis)interpretation of Ozawa was too charitable. We ended up (largely due to Steve Weinberg’s encouragement) writing a paper. So… where does one publish simple-minded (but, apparently, hitherto unappreciated) remarks about elementary Quantum Mechanics? Sonia was chatting with me about this PRL (arXiv version), which seems to have made a splash in the news media and in the blogosphere. She couldn’t make heads or tails of it and (as you will see), I didn’t do much better. But I thought that I would take the opportunity to lay out a few relevant remarks. Since we’re going to be talking about the Uncertainty Principle, and measurements, it behoves us to formulate our discussion in terms of density matrices. A quantum system is described in terms of a density matrix, $\rho \rho$, which is a self-adjoint, positive-semidefinite trace-class operator, satisfying $\mathrm{Tr}\left(\rho \right)=1,\phantom{\rule{2em}{0ex}}\mathrm{Tr}\left({\rho }^{2}\right)\le 1 Tr\left(\rho\right)=1,\qquad Tr\left(\rho^2\right) \leq 1 $ In the Schrödinger picture (which we will use), it evolves unitarily in time (1)$\rho \left({t}_{2}\right)=U\left({t}_{2},{t}_{1}\right)\rho \left({t}_{1}\right){U\left({t}_{2},{t}_{1}\right)}^{-1}\rho\left(t_2\right) = U\left(t_2,t_1\right) \rho\left(t_1\right) \left\{U\left(t_2,t_1\right)\right\}^\left\{-1\right\} $ except when a measurement is made. Consider a self-adjoint operator $AA$ (an “observable”). We will assume that $AA$ has a pure point spectrum, and let ${P}_{i}^{\left(A\right)}P^\left\{\left(A\right)\right\}_i$ be the projection onto the ${i}^{\text{th}}i^\left\{\text\left\{th\right\}\right\}$ eigenspace of $AA$. When we measure $AA$, quantum mechanics computes for us 1. A classical probability distribution for the values on the readout panel of the measuring apparatus. The moments of this probability distribution are computed by taking traces. The ${n}^{\text{th}}n^\left\{\text\left\{th\right\}\right\}$ moment is $⟨{A}^{n}⟩=\mathrm{Tr}\left({A}^{n}\rho \right) \left\{\langle A^n\rangle\right\} = Tr\left(A^n\rho\right) $ In particular, the variance is ${\left(\Delta A\right)}^{2}=\mathrm{Tr}\left({A}^{2}\rho \right)-{\left(\mathrm{Tr}\left(A\rho \right)\right)}^{2} \left\{\left(\Delta A\right)\right\}^2 = Tr\left(A^2\rho\right) - \left\{\left\left(Tr\left(A\rho\right)\right\right)\right\}^2 $ 2. A change (which, under the assumptions stated, can be approximated as occurring instantaneously) in the density matrix, (2)${\rho }_{\text{after}}\equiv \stackrel{^}{\rho }\left(\rho ,A\right)=\sum _{i}{P}_{i}^{\left(A\right)}\rho {P}_{i}^{\left(A\right)}\rho_\left\{\text\left\{after\right\}\right\}\equiv \hat\left\{\rho\right\}\left(\rho,A\right) = \sum_i P^\left\{\left(A\right)\right\}_i \rho P^\left\{\left(A\right)\right\}_i $ Thereafter, the system, described by the new density matrix, $\stackrel{^}{\rho }\hat\left\{\rho\right\}$, again evolves unitarily, according to (1). The new density matrix, $\stackrel{^}{\rho }\hat\left\{\rho\right\}$, after the measurement1, can be completely characterized by two properties 1. All of the moments of $AA$ are the same as before $⟨{A}^{n}⟩=\mathrm{Tr}\left({A}^{n}\stackrel{^}{\rho }\left(\rho ,A\right)\right)=\mathrm{Tr}\left({A}^{n}\rho \right) \langle A^n\rangle = Tr\left(A^n \hat\left\{\rho\right\}\left(\rho,A\right)\right)= Tr\left(A^n \rho\right) $ (In particular, $\Delta A\Delta A$ is unchanged.) Moreover, for any observable, $CC$, which commutes with $AA$ ( $\left[C,A\right]=0\left[C,A\right]=0$ ), $⟨{C}^{n}⟩=\mathrm{Tr}\left({C}^{n}\stackrel{^}{\rho }\left(\rho ,A\right)\right)=\mathrm{Tr}\left({C}^{n}\rho \right) \langle C^n\rangle = Tr\left(C^n \hat\left\{\rho\right\}\left(\rho,A\right)\right)= Tr\left(C^n \rho\right) $ 2. However, the measurement has destroyed all interference between the different eigenspaces of $AA$ $\mathrm{Tr}\left(\left[A,B\right]\stackrel{^}{\rho }\left(\rho ,A\right)\right)=0,\phantom{\rule{2em}{0ex}}\forall \phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}B Tr\left(\left[A,B\right] \hat\left\{\rho\right\}\left(\rho,A\right)\right) = 0, \qquad \forall\, B $ Note that it is really important that I have assumed a pure point spectrum. If $AA$ has a continuous spectrum, then you have to deal with complications both physical and mathematical. Mathematically, you need to deal with the complications of the Spectral Theorem; physically, you have to put in finite detector resolutions, in order to make proper sense of what a “measurement” does. I’ll explain, later, how to deal with those complications Now consider two such observables, $AA$ and $BB$. The Uncertainty Principle gives a lower bound on the product (3)${\left(\Delta A\right)}_{\rho }{\left(\Delta B\right)}_{\rho }\ge \frac{1}{2}\mid \mathrm{Tr}\left(-i\left[A,B\right]\rho \right)\mid \left\{\left(\Delta A\right)\right\}_\rho \left\{\left(\Delta B\right)\right\}_\rho \geq \tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\}\left|Tr\left(-i\left[A,B\right]\rho\right)\right| $ in any state, $\rho \rho$. (Exercise: Generalize the usual proof, presented for “pure states” to the case of density matrices.) As stated, (3) is not a statement about the uncertainties in any actual sequence of measurements. After all, once you measure $AA$, in state $\rho \rho$, the density matrix changes, according to (2), to (4)$\stackrel{^}{\rho }\left(\rho ,A\right)=\sum _{i}{P}_{i}^{\left(A\right)}\rho {P}_{i}^{\left(A\right)}\hat\left\{\rho\right\}\left(\rho,A\right) = \sum_i P^\left\{\left(A\right)\right\}_i \rho P^\left\{\left(A\right)\right\}_i $ so a subsequent measurement of $BB$ is made in a different state from the initial one. The obvious next thing to try is to note that, since the uncertainty of $AA$ in the state $\stackrel{^}{\rho }\left(\rho ,A\right)\hat\left\{\rho\right\}\left(\rho,A\right)$ is the *same* as in the state $\rho \rho$, and since we are measuring $BB$ in the state $\stackrel{^}{\rho }\left(\rho ,A\right)\hat\left\{\rho\right\}\left(\rho,A\right)$, we can apply the Uncertainty Relation, (3) in the state $\stackrel{^}{\rho }\hat\left\{\rho\right\}$, instead of in the state, $\rho \rho$. Unfortunately, $\mathrm{Tr}\left(\left[A,B\right]\stackrel{^}{\rho }\left(\rho ,A\right)\right)=0Tr\left(\left[A,B\right]\hat\left\{\rho\right\}\left(\rho,A\right)\right)=0$, so this leads to an uninteresting lower bound on the product the uncertainties (5)$\left(\Delta A\right)\left(\Delta B\right)={\left(\Delta A\right)}_{\stackrel{^}{\rho }\left(\rho ,A\right)}{\left(\Delta B\right)}_{\stackrel{^}{\rho }\left(\rho ,A\right)}\ge 0\left(\Delta A\right) \left(\Delta B\right) = \left\{\left(\Delta A\right)\right\}_\left\{\hat\left\{\rho\right\}\left(\rho,A\right)\right\} \left\{\left(\Delta B\right)\right\}_\left\{\hat\left\{\rho\right\}\left(\rho,A\right)\right\} \geq 0 $ for a measurement of $AA$ immediately followed by a measurement of $BB$. It is, apparently, possible to derive a better lower bound on the product of the uncertainties of successive measurements (which is still, of course, weaker than the “naïve” $\frac{1}{2}\mid \mathrm{Tr}\left(-i\left[A,B\right]\rho \right)\mid \tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\}\left|Tr\left(-i\left[A,B\right]\rho\right)\right|$, which is what you might have guessed for the lower bound, had you not thought about what (3) means). But I don’t know how to even state that result at the level of generality of the above discussion Instead, I’d like to discuss how one treats measurements, when $AA$ doesn’t have a pure point spectrum. When it’s discussed at all, it’s treated very poorly in the textbooks. #### Measuring Unbounded Operators Let’s go straight to the worst-case, of an unbounded operator, with $\mathrm{Spec}\left(A\right)=ℝSpec\left(A\right)=\mathbb\left\{R\right\}$. Such an operator has no eigenvectors at all. What happens when we measure such an observable? Clearly, the two conditions which characterized the change in the density matrix, in the case of a pure point spectrum, 1. $\mathrm{Tr}\left({A}^{n}\stackrel{^}{\rho }\left(\rho ,A\right)\right)=\mathrm{Tr}\left({A}^{n}\rho \right)Tr\left(A^n \hat\left\{\rho\right\}\left(\rho,A\right)\right)= Tr\left(A^n \rho\right)$ 2. $\mathrm{Tr}\left(\left[A,B\right]\stackrel{^}{\rho }\left(\rho ,A\right)\right)=0,\phantom{\rule{2em}{0ex}}\forall \phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}BTr\left(\left[A,B\right] \hat\left\{\rho\right\}\left(\rho,A\right)\right) = 0, \qquad \forall\, B$ are going to have to be modified. The second condition clearly can’t hold for all choice of $BB$, in the unbounded case (think $A=xA=\mathbf\left\{x\right\}$ and $B=pB=\mathbf\left\{p\right\}$). As to the first condition, we might *hope* that the moments of the classical probability distribution for the observed measurements of $AA$ would be calculated by taking traces with the density matrix, $\stackrel{^}{\rho }\hat\left\{\rho\right\}$. But that probability distribution *depends* on the resolution of the detector, something which the density matrix, $\rho \rho$, knows nothing about. To keep things simple, let’s specialize to $ℋ={ℒ}^{2}\left(ℝ\right)\mathcal\left\{H\right\}=\mathcal\left\{L\right\}^2\left(\mathbb\left\{R\right\}\right)$ and $A=xA=\mathbf\left\{x\right\}$. Let’s imagine a detector which can measure the particle’s position with a resolution, $\sigma \sigma$. Let’s define a projection operator ${P}_{{x}_{0}}:\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\psi \left(x\right)↦\int \frac{dy}{\sigma \sqrt{\pi }}{e}^{-\left(\left(x-{x}_{0}{\right)}^{2}+\left(y-{x}_{0}{\right)}^{2}\right)/2{\sigma }^{2}}\psi \left(y\right) P_\left\{x_0\right\}:\quad \psi\left(x\right) \mapsto \int\frac\left\{d y\right\}\left\{\sigma\sqrt\left\{\pi\right\}\right\} e^\left\{-\left\left( \left(x-x_0\right)^2+\left(y-x_0\right)^2\right\right)/2\sigma^2\right\}\psi\left(y\right) $ which reflects the notion that our detector has measured the position to be ${x}_{0}x_0$, to within an accuracy $\sigma \sigma$. Here, I’ve chosen a Gaussian; but really any acceptance function peaked at $x={x}_{0}x=x_0$, and dying away sufficiently fast away from ${x}_{0}x_0$ will do (and may more-accurately reflect the properties of your actual detector). But I only know how to do Gaussian integrals, so this one is a convenient choice. This is, indeed, a projection operator: ${P}_{{x}_{0}}{P}_{{x}_{0}}={P}_{{x}_{0}}P_\left\{x_0\right\}P_\left\{x_0\right\} = P_\left\{x_0\right\}$. But integrating over ${x}_{0}x_0$ doesn’t quite give the completeness relation one would want $\int \frac{d{x}_{0}}{2\sigma \sqrt{\pi }}{P}_{{x}_{0}}\ne 𝟙 \int \frac\left\{d x_0\right\}\left\{2\sigma\sqrt\left\{\pi\right\}\right\} P_\left\{x_0\right\} \neq \mathbb\left\{1\right\} $ Instead we find $\int \frac{d{x}_{0}}{2\sigma \sqrt{\pi }}{P}_{{x}_{0}}:\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\psi \left(x\right)↦\int \frac{du}{2\sigma \sqrt{\pi }}{e}^{-{u}^{2}/4{\sigma }^{2}}\psi \left(x+u\right) \int \frac\left\{d x_0\right\}\left\{2\sigma\sqrt\left\{\pi\right\}\right\} P_\left\{x_0\right\}:\quad \psi\left(x\right) \mapsto \int \frac\left\{d u\right\}\left\{2\sigma\sqrt\left\{\pi\right\}\right\} e^\left\{-u^2/4\sigma^2\right\} \psi\left(x+u\right) $ Rather than getting $\psi \left(x\right)\psi\left(x\right)$ back, we get $\psi \left(x\right)\psi\left(x\right)$ smeared against a Gaussian. To fix this, we need to consider a more general class of projection operators (here, again, the Gaussian acceptance function proves very convenient): (6)${P}_{{x}_{0},{k}_{0}}:\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\psi \left(x\right)↦\int \frac{dy}{\sigma \sqrt{\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left[-\left(\left(x-{x}_{0}{\right)}^{2}+\left(y-{x}_{0}{\right)}^{2}\right)/2{\sigma }^{2}+i{k}_{0}\left(x-y\right)\right]\psi \left(y\right)P_\left\{x_0,k_0\right\}:\quad \psi\left(x\right)\mapsto \int \frac\left\{d y\right\}\left\{\sigma \sqrt\left\{\pi\right\}\right\}\exp\left\left[-\left\left(\left(x-x_0\right)^2 + \left(y-x_0\right)^2\right\right)/2\sigma^2 +i k_0\left(x-y\right)\right\right] \psi\left(y\right) $ These are still projection operators, ${P}_{{x}_{0},{k}_{0}}{P}_{{x}_{0},{k}_{0}}={P}_{{x}_{0},{k}_{0}} P_\left\{x_0,k_0\right\} P_\left\{x_0,k_0\right\} = P_\left\{x_0,k_0\right\} $ But now they obey the completeness relation (7)$\int \frac{d{x}_{0}d{k}_{0}}{2\pi }{P}_{{x}_{0},{k}_{0}}=𝟙\int \frac\left\{d x_0 d k_0\right\}\left\{2\pi\right\} P_\left\{x_0,k_0\right\} =\mathbb\left\{1\right\} $ so we can now assert that the density matrix after measuring $x\mathbf\left\{x\right\}$ is (8)$\stackrel{^}{\rho }=\int \frac{d{x}_{0}d{k}_{0}}{2\pi }{P}_{{x}_{0},{k}_{0}}\rho {P}_{{x}_{0},{k}_{0}}\hat\left\{\rho\right\} = \int \frac\left\{d x_0 d k_0\right\}\left\{2\pi\right\} P_\left\{x_0,k_0\right\} \rho P_\left\{x_0,k_0\right\} $ If $\rho \rho$ is represented by the integral kernel, $K\left(x,y\right)K\left(x,y\right)$: $\rho :\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\psi \left(x\right)↦\int dy\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}K\left(x,y\right)\psi \left(y\right) \rho:\quad \psi\left(x\right) \mapsto \int d y\, K\left(x,y\right) \psi\left(y\right) $ then the new density matrix, $\stackrel{^}{\rho }\hat\left\{\rho\right\}$ is represented by the integral kernel $\stackrel{^}{K}\left(x,y\right)={e}^{-\left(x-y{\right)}^{2}/2{\sigma }^{2}}\int \frac{du}{\sigma \sqrt{2\pi }}{e}^{-{u}^{2}/2{\sigma }^{2}}K\left(x+u,y+u\right) \hat\left\{K\right\}\left(x,y\right) = e^\left\{-\left(x-y\right)^2/2\sigma^2\right\}\int \frac\left\{d u\right\}\left\{\sigma \sqrt\left\{2\pi\right\}\right\} e^\left\{-u^2/2\sigma^2\right\} K\left(x+u,y+u\right) $ Here we see clearly that it has the desired properties: 1. The off-diagonal terms are suppressed; $\stackrel{^}{K}\left(x,y\right)\to 0\hat\left\{K\right\}\left(x,y\right)\to 0$ for $\mid x-y\mid \gg \sigma |x-y|\gg \sigma$. 2. The near-diagonal terms are smeared by a Gaussian, representing the finite resolution of the detector. Moreover, the moments of the probability distribution for the measured value of $xx$ are given by taking traces with $\stackrel{^}{\rho }\hat\left\{\rho\right\}$: $⟨{x}^{n}⟩=\mathrm{Tr}\left({x}^{n}\stackrel{^}{\rho }\right) \langle x^n\rangle = Tr\left(\mathbf\left\{x\right\}^n \hat\left\{\rho\right\}\right) $ One easily computes $\begin{array}{rl}\mathrm{Tr}\left(x\stackrel{^}{\rho }\right)& =\mathrm{Tr}\left(x\rho \right)\\ \mathrm{Tr}\left({x}^{2}\stackrel{^}{\rho }\right)& ={\sigma }^{2}+\mathrm{Tr}\left({x}^{2}\rho \right)\\ \end{array} \begin\left\{split\right\} Tr\left(\mathbf\left\{x\right\} \hat\left\{\rho\right\}\right)&=Tr\left(\mathbf\left\{x\right\} \rho\right)\\ Tr\left(\mathbf\left\{x\right\}^2 \hat\left\{\rho\right\}\right)&=\sigma^2+ Tr\left(\mathbf\left\{x\right\}^2 \rho\right)\\ \end\left\{split\right\} $ So the intrinsic quantum-mechanical uncertainty of the position, $xx$, in the state, $\rho \rho$, adds in quadrature with the systematic uncertainty of the measuring apparatus to produce the measured uncertainty $\left(\Delta x{\right)}_{\text{measured}}^{2}=\left(\Delta x{\right)}_{\stackrel{^}{\rho }}^{2}=\left(\Delta x{\right)}_{\rho }^{2}+{\sigma }^{2} \left(\Delta x\right)^2_\left\{\text\left\{measured\right\}\right\} = \left(\Delta x\right)^2_\left\{\hat\left\{\rho\right\}\right\} = \left(\Delta x\right)^2_\left\{\rho\right\} + \sigma^2 $ exactly as we expect. There’s one feature of this Gaussian measuring apparatus which is a little special. Of course, we expect that measuring $xx$ should change the distribution for values of $pp$. Here, the effect (at least on the first few moments) is quite simple $\begin{array}{rl}\mathrm{Tr}\left(p\stackrel{^}{\rho }\right)& =\mathrm{Tr}\left(p\rho \right)\\ \mathrm{Tr}\left({p}^{2}\stackrel{^}{\rho }\right)& =\frac{1}{{\sigma }^{2}}+\mathrm{Tr}\left({p}^{2}\rho \right)\\ \end{array} \begin\left\{split\right\} Tr\left(\mathbf\left\{p\right\} \hat\left\{\rho\right\}\right)&=Tr\left(\mathbf\left\{p\right\} \rho\right)\\ Tr\left(\mathbf\left\{p\right\}^2 \hat\left\{\rho\right\}\right)&=\frac\left\{1\right\}\left\{\sigma^2\right\}+ Tr\left(\mathbf\left\{p\right\}^2 \rho\right)\\ \end\left\{split\right\} $ If we wanted to compute the effect of measuring $pp$, using a Gaussian detector with systematic uncertainty ${\sigma }_{p}=1/\sigma \sigma_p =1/\sigma$, we would use the same projectors (6) and obtain the same density matrix (8) after the measurement. This leads to very simple formulæ for the uncertainties resulting from successive measurements. Say we start with an initial state, $\rho \rho$, measure $xx$ with a Gaussian detector with systematic uncertainty ${\sigma }_{x}\sigma_x$, and then measure $pp$ with another Gaussian detector with systematic uncertainty ${\sigma }_{p}\sigma_p$. The measured uncertainties are (9)$\begin{array}{rl}{\left(\Delta x\right)}^{2}& ={\left(\Delta x\right)}_{\rho }^{2}+{\sigma }_{x}^{2}\\ {\left(\Delta p\right)}^{2}& ={\left(\Delta p\right)}_{\stackrel{^}{\rho }}^{2}+{\sigma }_{p}^{2}={\left(\Delta p\right)}_{\rho }^{2}+\frac{1}{{\sigma }_{x}^{2}}+{\sigma }_{p}^{2}\end{array}\begin\left\{split\right\} \left\{\left(\Delta x\right)\right\}^2&= \left\{\left(\Delta x\right)\right\}^2_\rho +\sigma_x^2\\ \left\{\left(\Delta p\right)\right\}^2&= \left\{\left(\Delta p\right)\right\}^2_\left\{\hat\left\{\rho\right\}\right\} +\sigma_p^2=\left\{\left(\Delta p\right)\right\}^2_\rho +\frac\left\{1\right\}\left\{\sigma_x^2\right\}+\sigma_p^2 \end\left\{split\right\} $ You can play around with other, non-Gaussian, acceptance functions to replace (6). You’re limited only by your ability to find a complete set of projectors, satisfying the analogue of (7) and, of course, by your ability to do the requisite integrals. What you’ll discover is that the Gaussian acceptance function provides the best tradeoff (when, say, you measure $xx$) between the systematic uncertainty in $xx$ and the contribution to the quantum-mechanical uncertainty in $pp$, resulting from the measurement. #### Update (9/20/2012): I looked some more at the Ozawa paper whose “Universally valid reformulation” of the uncertainty principle this PRL proposes to test. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem nearly as interesting as it did at first glance. • For observables, $A,BA,B$, with pure point spectra, we can assume “ideal” measuring apparati (whose measured uncertainty equals the inherent quantum-mechanical uncertainty of the observable in the quantum state in which the measurement is made). In that case, his uncertainty relation (see (17) of his paper) reduces to the “uninteresting” (5). Of course that’s trivially satisfied. I believe that a stronger bound can be derived, in this case. But doing so requires more sophisticated techniques than Ozawa uses. • For unbounded observables, like $x,px,p$, we can see from what I’ve said above that the actual lower bound is *stronger* than the one Ozawa derives. Consider a measurement of $xx$, followed by a measurement of $pp$. From (9), the product of the measured uncertainties2 satisfies (10)$\begin{array}{rl}{\left(\Delta x\right)}^{2}{\left(\Delta p\right)}^{2}& \ge \frac{5}{4}+{\left(\Delta x\right)}_{\rho }^{2}\left(\frac{1}{{\sigma }_{x}^{2}}+{\sigma }_{p}^{2}\right)+{\left(\Delta p\right)}_{\rho }^{2}{\sigma }_{x}^{2}+{\sigma }_{x}^{2}{\sigma }_{p}^{2}\\ & \ge {\left(\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{1+{\sigma }_{x}^{2}{\sigma }_{p}^{2}}\right)}^{2}\end{array}\begin\left\{split\right\} \left\{\left(\Delta x\right)\right\}^2\left\{\left(\Delta p\right)\right\}^2 &\geq \frac\left\{5\right\}\left\{4\right\} + \left\{\left(\Delta x\right)\right\}^2_\rho \left\left(\frac\left\{1\right\}\left\{\sigma_x^2\right\}+\sigma_p^2\right\right) + \left\{\left(\Delta p\right)\right\}^2_\rho \sigma_x^2 +\sigma_x^2\sigma_p^2\\ &\geq \left\{\left\left(\frac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\} +\sqrt\left\{1+\sigma_x^2\sigma_p^2\right\}\right\right)\right\}^2 \end\left\{split\right\} $ where the last inequality is saturated by an initial state, $\rho \rho$, which is a pure state consisting of a Gaussian wave packet with carefully-chosen width, ${\left(\Delta x\right)}_{\rho }^{2}=\frac{{\sigma }_{x}^{2}}{2\sqrt{1+{\sigma }_{x}^{2}{\sigma }_{p}^{2}}},\phantom{\rule{2em}{0ex}}{\left(\Delta p\right)}_{\rho }^{2}=\frac{\sqrt{1+{\sigma }_{x}^{2}{\sigma }_{p}^{2}}}{2{\sigma }_{x}^{2}} \left\{\left(\Delta x\right)\right\}^2_\rho = \frac\left\{\sigma_x^2\right\}\left\{2\sqrt\left\{1+\sigma_x^2\sigma_p^2\right\}\right\},\qquad \left\{\left(\Delta p\right)\right\}^2_\rho = \frac\left\{\sqrt\left\{1+\sigma_x^2\sigma_p^2\right\}\right\}\left\{2\sigma_x^2\right\} $ #### Update (9/28/2012): Here is, at least, one lower bound (stronger than Ozawa’s stupid bound) for the product of measured uncertainties when $A,BA,B$ have pure point spectra. Let $\stackrel{^}{B}=\sum _{i}{P}_{i}^{\left(A\right)}B{P}_{i}^{\left(A\right)} \hat\left\{B\right\} = \sum_i P^\left\{\left(A\right)\right\}_i B P^\left\{\left(A\right)\right\}_i $ and ${M}_{i}={P}_{i}^{\left(A\right)}B\left(𝟙-{P}_{i}^{\left(A\right)}\right) M_i = P^\left\{\left(A\right)\right\}_i B \left\left(\mathbb\left\{1\right\} - P^\left\{\left(A\right)\right\}_i\right\right) $ We easily compute ${\left(\Delta B\right)}_{\stackrel{^}{\rho }}^{2}={\left(\Delta \stackrel{^}{B}\right)}_{\rho }^{2}+\sum _{i}\mathrm{Tr}\left({M}_{i}{M}_{i}^{†}\rho \right) \left\{\left(\Delta B\right)\right\}^2_\left\{\hat\left\{\rho\right\}\right\} = \left\{\left(\Delta \hat\left\{B\right\}\right)\right\}^2_\left\{\rho\right\} + \sum_i Tr\left(M_i \M_i^\dagger \rho\right) $ and hence (11)${\left(\Delta A\right)}_{\rho }^{2}{\left(\Delta B\right)}_{\stackrel{^}{\rho }}^{2}={\left(\Delta A\right)}_{\rho }^{2}{\left(\Delta \stackrel{^}{B}\right)}_{\rho }^{2}+{\left(\Delta A\right)}_{\rho }^{2}\sum _{i}\mathrm{Tr}\left({M}_{i}{M}_{i}^{†}\rho \right)\left\{\left(\Delta A\right)\right\}^2_\rho \left\{\left(\Delta B\right)\right\}^2_\left\{\hat\left\{\rho\right\}\right\} = \left\{\left(\Delta A\right)\right\}^2_\rho \left\{\left(\Delta \hat\left\{B\right\}\right)\right\}^2_\left\{\rho\right\} + \left\{\left(\Delta A\right)\right\}^2_\rho \sum_i Tr\left(M_i \M_i^\dagger \rho\right) $ Since $\left[\stackrel{^}{B},A\right]=0\left[\hat\left\{B\right\},A\right]=0$, the first term is bounded below3 by (12)${\left(\Delta A\right)}_{\rho }^{2}{\left(\Delta \stackrel{^}{B}\right)}_{\rho }^{2}\ge {\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\left\{A,\stackrel{^}{B}\right\}\rho \right)-\mathrm{Tr}\left(A\rho \right)\mathrm{Tr}\left(\stackrel{^}{B}\rho \right)\right)}^{2}\left\{\left(\Delta A\right)\right\}^2_\rho \left\{\left(\Delta \hat\left\{B\right\}\right)\right\}^2_\left\{\rho\right\} \geq \left\{\left\left(\frac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\} Tr\left(\\left\{A,\hat\left\{B\right\}\\right\}\rho\right)-Tr\left(A\rho\right)Tr\left(\hat\left\{B\right\}\rho\right)\right\right)\right\}^2 $ The second term is also positive-semidefinite. For the classic case of a 2-state system, with $A={J}_{x}A=J_x$ and $B={J}_{y}B=J_y$ (the system considered by the aforementioned PRL), we see that $\stackrel{^}{B}\equiv 0\hat\left\{B\right\}\equiv 0$, and the product of uncertainties is entirely given by the second term of (11). The most general density matrix for the 2-state system is parametrized by the unit 3-ball $\rho =\frac{1}{2}\left(𝟙+\stackrel{⇀}{a}\cdot \stackrel{⇀}{\sigma }\right),\phantom{\rule{2em}{0ex}}\stackrel{⇀}{a}\cdot \stackrel{⇀}{a}\le 1 \rho = \frac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\}\left\left(\mathbb\left\{1\right\}+ \vec\left\{a\right\}\cdot\vec\left\{\sigma\right\}\right\right), \qquad \vec\left\{a\right\}\cdot\vec\left\{a\right\}\leq 1 $ The points on the boundary ${S}^{2}=\left\{\stackrel{⇀}{a}\cdot \stackrel{⇀}{a}=1\right\}S^2=\\left\{\vec\left\{a\right\}\cdot\vec\left\{a\right\}=1\\right\}$ correspond to pure states. Upon measuring $A={J}_{x}\equiv \frac{1}{2}{\sigma }_{x}A=J_x\equiv\tfrac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\}\sigma_x$, the density matrix after the measurement is $\stackrel{^}{\rho }=\frac{1}{2}\left(𝟙+{a}_{x}{\sigma }_{x}\right) \hat\left\{\rho\right\} = \frac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\}\left\left(\mathbb\left\{1\right\}+ \a_x\sigma_x\right\right) $ and, for a subsequent measurement of ${J}_{y}J_y$, ${\left(\Delta {J}_{x}\right)}_{\rho }^{2}{\left(\Delta {J}_{y}\right)}_{\stackrel{^}{\rho }}^{2}=\frac{1}{16}\left(1-{a}_{x}^{2}\right) \left\{\left(\Delta J_x\right)\right\}^2_\rho\left\{\left(\Delta J_y\right)\right\}^2_\left\{\hat\left\{\rho\right\}\right\} = \frac\left\{1\right\}\left\{16\right\}\left(1-a_x^2\right) $ as “predicted” by (11). 1 Frequently, one wants to ask questions about conditional probabilites: “Given that a measurement of $AA$ yields the value ${\lambda }_{1}\lambda_1$, what is the probability distribution for a subsequent measurement of …”. To answer such questions, one typically works with a new (“projected”) density matrix, $\rho \prime =\frac{1}{Z}{P}_{1}^{\left(A\right)}\rho {P}_{1}^{\left(A\right)}\rho&apos = \frac\left\{1\right\}\left\{Z\right\} P^\left\{\left(A\right)\right\}_1 \rho P^\left\{\left(A\right)\right\}_1$, where the normalization factor $Z=\mathrm{Tr}\left({P}_{1}^{\left(A\right)}\rho \right)Z=Tr\left(P^\left\{\left(A\right)\right\}_1 \rho\right)$ is required to make $\mathrm{Tr}\left(\rho \prime \right)=1Tr\left(\rho&apos\right)=1$. The formalism in the main text of this post is geared, instead, to computing joint probability distributions. 2 Ozawa’s inequality isn’t for the product of the measured uncertainties, $\left(\Delta x\right)\left(\Delta p\right)\left(\Delta x\right)\left(\Delta p\right)$, but rather for the product, $\left(\Delta x\right){\left(\Delta p\right)}_{\stackrel{^}{\rho }}\left(\Delta x\right)\left\{\left(\Delta p\right)\right\}_\left\{\hat\left\{\rho\right\}\right\}$, of the measured uncertainty in $xx$ with the quantum-mechanical uncertainty in $pp$ in the state $\stackrel{^}{\rho }\hat\left\{\rho\right\}$ which results from the $xx$-measurement. To obtain this, just mentally set ${\sigma }_{p}=0\sigma_p=0$ in the above formulæ. 3 Let $S=\left(A-{⟨A⟩}_{\rho }𝟙\right)+{e}^{i\theta }\alpha \left(B-{⟨B⟩}_{\rho }𝟙\right)S= \left\left(A-\left\{\langle A\rangle\right\}_\rho\mathbb\left\{1\right\}\right\right)+e^\left\{i\theta\right\}\alpha \left\left(B-\left\{\langle B\rangle\right\}_\rho\mathbb\left\{1\right\}\right\right)$ for $\alpha \in ℝ\alpha\in\mathbb\left\{R\right\}$. Consider $Q\left(\alpha \right)=\mathrm{Tr}\left(S{S}^{†}\rho \right) Q\left(\alpha\right) = Tr\left(S S^\dagger \rho\right) $ This is a quadratic expression in $\alpha \alpha$, which is positive-semidefinite, $Q\left(\alpha \right)\ge 0Q\left(\alpha\right)\geq 0$. Thus, the discriminant must be negative-semidefinite, $D\le 0D\leq 0$. For $\theta =\pi /2\theta=\pi/2$, this yields the conventional uncertainty relation, ${\left(\Delta A\right)}_{\rho }^{2}{\left(\Delta B\right)}_{\rho }^{2}\ge \frac{1}{4}{\left(\mathrm{Tr}\left(\left[A,B\right]\rho \right)\right)}^{2} \left\{\left(\Delta A\right)\right\}^2_\rho\left\{\left(\Delta B\right)\right\}^2_\rho\geq\frac\left\{1\right\}\left\{4\right\}\left\{\left\left(Tr\left(\left[A,B\right]\rho\right)\right\right)\right\}^2 $ For $\theta =0\theta=0$, it yields ${\left(\Delta A\right)}_{\rho }^{2}{\left(\Delta B\right)}_{\rho }^{2}\ge {\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\left\{A,B\right\}\rho \right)-\mathrm{Tr}\left(A\rho \right)\mathrm{Tr}\left(B\rho \right)\right)}^{2} \left\{\left(\Delta A\right)\right\}^2_\rho\left\{\left(\Delta B\right)\right\}^2_\rho\geq\left\{\left\left(\frac\left\{1\right\}\left\{2\right\}Tr\left(\\left\{A,B\\right\}\rho\right)-Tr\left(A\rho\right)Tr\left(B\rho\right)\right\right)\right\}^2 $ which is an expression you sometimes see, in the higher-quality textbooks. ## December 08, 2013 ### John Baez - Azimuth Lebesgue’s Universal Covering Problem I try to focus on serious problems in this blog, mostly environmental issues and the attempt to develop ‘green mathematics’. But I seem unable to resist talking about random fun stuff now and then. For example, the Lebesgue universal covering problem. It’s not important, it’s just strange… but for some reason I feel a desire to talk about it. For starters, let’s say the diameter of a region in the plane is the maximum distance between two points in this region. You all know what a circle of diameter 1 looks like. But an equilateral triangle with edges of length 1 also has diameter 1: After all, two points in this triangle are farthest apart when they’re at two corners. And you’ll notice, if you think about it, that this triangle doesn’t fit inside a circle of diameter 1: In 1914, the famous mathematician Henri Lebesgue sent a letter to a pal named Pál. And in this letter he asked: what’s the smallest possible region that contains every set in the plane with diameter 1? He was actually more precise. The phrase “smallest possible” is vague, but Lebesgue wanted the set with the least possible area. The phrase “contains” is also vague, at least as I used it. I didn’t mean that our region should literally contain every set with diameter 1. Only the whole plane does that! I meant that we can rotate or translate any set with diameter 1 until it fits in our region. So a more precise statement is: What is the smallest possible area of a region $S$ in the plane such that every set of diameter 1 in the plane can be rotated and translated to fit inside $S$? You see why math gets a reputation of being dry: sometimes when you make a simple question precise it gets longer. Even this second version of the question is a bit wrong, since it’s presuming there exists a region with smallest possible area that does the job. Maybe you can do it with regions whose area gets smaller and smaller, closer and closer to some number, but you can’t do it with a region whose area equals that number! Also, the word ‘region’ is a bit vague. So if I were talking to a nitpicky mathematician, I might pose the puzzle this way: What is the greatest lower bound of the measures of closed sets $S \subseteq \mathbb{R}^2$ such that every set $T \subseteq \mathbb{R}^2$ of diameter 1 can be rotated and translated to fit inside $S$? Anyway, the reason this puzzle is famous is not that it gets dry when you state it precisely. It’s that it’s hard to solve! It’s called Lebesgue’s universal covering problem. A region in the plane is called a universal covering if it does the job: any set in the plane of diameter 1 can fit inside it, in the sense I made precise. Pál set out to find universal coverings, and in 1920 he wrote a paper on his results. He found a very nice one: a regular hexagon circumscribed around a circle of diameter 1. Do you see why you can fit the equilateral triangle with side length 1 inside this? This hexagon has area $\sqrt{3}/2 \approx 0.86602540$ But in the same paper, Pál showed you could safely cut off two corners of this hexagon and get a smaller universal covering! This one has area $2 - 2/\sqrt{3} \approx 0.84529946$ He guessed this solution was optimal. However, in 1936, a guy named Sprague sliced two tiny pieces off Pál’s proposed solution and found a universal covering with area $\sim 0.84413770$ Here’s the idea: The big hexagon is Pál's original solution. He then inscribed a regular 12-sided polygon inside this, and showed that you can remove two of the corners, say $B_1B_2B$ and $F_1F_2F,$ and get a smaller universal covering. But Sprague noticed that near $D$ you can also remove the part outside the circle with radius 1 centered at $B_1$, as well as the part outside the circle with radius 1 centered at $F_2.$ Sprague conjectured that this is the best you can do. But in 1975, Hansen showed you could slice off very tiny corners off Sprague’s solution, each of which reduces the area by just $6 \cdot 10^{-18}.$ I think this microscopic advance, more than anything else, convinced people that Lebesgue’s universal covering problem was fiendishly difficult. Viktor Klee, in a parody of the usual optimistic prophecies people like to make, wrote that: … progress on this question, which has been painfully slow in the past, may be even more painfully slow in the future. Indeed, my whole interest in this problem is rather morbid. I don’t know any reason that it’s important. I don’t see it as connected to lots of other beautiful math. It just seems astoundingly hard compared to what you might initially think. I admire people who work on it in the same way I admire people who decide to ski across the Antarctic. It’s fun to read about—from the comfort of my living room, sitting by the fire—but I can’t imagine actually doing it! In 1980, a guy named Duff did a lot better. All the universal coverings so far were convex subsets of the plane. But he considered nonconvex universal coverings and found one with area: $\sim 0.84413570$ This changed the game a lot. If we only consider convex universal coverings, it’s possible to prove there’s one with the least possible area—though we don’t know what it is. But if we allow nonconvex ones, we don’t even know this. There could be solutions whose area gets smaller and smaller, approaching some nonzero value, but never reaching it. So at this point, Lebesgue’s puzzle split in two: one for universal coverings, and one for convex universal coverings. I’ll only talk about the second one, since I don’t know of further progress on the first. Remember how Hansen improved Sprague’s universal covering by chopping off two tiny pieces? In 1992 he went further. He again sliced two corners off Sprague’s solution. One, the same shape as before, reduced the area by just $6 \cdot 10^{-18}.$ But the other was vastly larger: it reduced the area by a whopping $4 \cdot 10^{-11}.$ I believe this is the smallest convex universal covering known so far. But there’s more to say. In 2005, Peter Brass and Mehrbod Sharifi came up with a nice lower bound. They showed any convex universal covering must have an area of least $0.832$ They got this result by a rigorous computer-aided search for the convex set with the smallest area that contains a circle, equilateral triangle and pentagon of diameter 1. If you only want your convex set to contain a circle and equilateral triangle of diameter 1, you can get away with this: This gives a lower bound of $0.825$ But the pentagon doesn’t fit in this set! Here is the least-area convex shape that also contains a pentagon of diameter 1, as found by Brass and Sharifi: You’ll notice the triangle no longer has the same center as the circle! To find this result, it was enough to keep the circle fixed, translate the triangle, and translate and rotate the pentagon. So, they searched through a 5-dimensional space, repeatedly computing the area of the convex hull of these three shapes to see how small they could make it. They considered 53,118,162 cases. Of these, 655,602 required further care—roughly speaking, they had to move the triangle and pentagon around slightly to see if they could make the area even smaller. They say they could have done better if they’d also included a fourth shape, but this was computationally infeasible, since it would take them from a 5-dimensional search space to an 8-dimensional one. It’s possible that one could tackle this using a distributed computing project where a lot of people contribute computer time, like they do in the search for huge prime numbers. If you hear of more progress on this issue, please let me know! I hope that sometime—perhaps tomorrow, perhaps decades hence—someone will report good news. ### References Hansen’s record-holding convex universal cover is here: • H. Hansen, Small universal covers for sets of unit diameter, Geometriae Dedicata 42 (1992), 205–213. It’s quite readable. This is where I got the picture of Pál’s solution and Sprague’s improvement. The paper on the current best lower bound for convex universal coverings is also quite nice: • Peter Brass and Mehrbod Sharifi, A lower bound for Lebesgue’s universal cover problem, International Journal of Computational Geometry & Applications 15 (2005), 537–544. The picture of the equilateral triangle in the circle comes from an earlier paper, which got a lower bound of $0.8271$ by considering the circle and regular $3^n$-gons of diameter 1 for all $n$: • Gy. Elekes, Generalized breadths, circular Cantor sets, and the least area UCC, Discrete & Computational Geometry 12 (1994), 439–449. I have not yet managed to get ahold of Duff’s paper on the record-holding nonconvex universal covering: • G. F. D. Duff, A smaller universal cover for sets of unit diameter, C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. 2 (1980), 37–42. One interesting thing is that in 1963, Eggleston found a universal covering that’s minimal in the following sense: no subset of it is a universal covering. However, it doesn’t have the least possible area! • H. G. Eggleston, Minimal universal covers in $\mathrm{E}^n,$ Israel J. Math. 1 (1963), 149–155. Later, Kovalev showed that any ‘minimal’ universal covering in this sense is a star domain: • M. D. Kovalev, A minimal Lebesgue covering exists (Russian), Mat. Zametki 40 (1986), 401–406, 430. This means there’s a point $x_0$ inside the set such that for any other point $x$ in the set, the line segment connecting $x_0$ and $x$ is in the set. Any convex set is a star domain, but not conversely: ### Sean Carroll - Preposterous Universe The Branch We Were Sitting On In the latest issue of the New York Review, Cathleen Schine reviews Levels of Life, a new book by Julian Barnes. It’s described as a three-part meditation on grief, following the death of Barnes’s wife Pat Kavanagh. One of the things that is of no solace to Barnes (and there are many) is religion. He writes: When we killed–or exiled–God, we also killed ourselves…. No God, no afterlife, no us. We were right to kill Him, of course, this long-standing imaginary friend of ours. And we weren’t going to get an afterlife anyway. But we sawed off the branch we were sitting on. And the view from there, from that height–even if it was only an illusion of a view–wasn’t so bad. I can’t disagree. Atheists often proclaim the death of God in positively gleeful terms, but it’s important to recognize what was lost–a purpose in living, a natural place in the universe. The loss is not irretrievable; there is nothing that stops us from creating our own meaning even if there’s no supernatural overseer to hand one to us. But it’s a daunting task, one to which we haven’t really faced up. ### Andrew Jaffe - Leaves on the Line Academic Blogging Still Dangerous? Nearly a decade ago, blogging was young, and its place in the academic world wasn’t clear. Back in 2005, I wrote about an anonymous article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, a so-called “advice” column admonishing academic job seekers to avoid blogging, mostly because it let the hiring committee find out things that had nothing whatever to do with their academic job, and reject them on those (inappropriate) grounds. I thought things had changed. Many academics have blogs, and indeed many institutions encourage it (here at Imperial, there’s a College-wide list of blogs written by people at all levels, and I’ve helped teach a course on blogging for young academics). More generally, outreach has become an important component of academic life (that is, it’s at least necessary to pay it lip service when applying for funding or promotions) and blogging is usually seen as a useful way to reach a wide audience outside of one’s field. So I was distressed to see the lament — from an academic blogger — “Want an academic job? Hold your tongue”. Things haven’t changed as much as I thought: … [A senior academic said that] the blog, while it was to be commended for its forthright tone, was so informal and laced with profanity that the professor could not help but hold the blog against the potential faculty member…. It was the consensus that aspiring young scientists should steer clear of such activities. Depending on the content of the blog in question, this seems somewhere between a disregard for academic freedom and a judgment of the candidate on completely irrelevant grounds. Of course, it is natural to want the personalities of our colleagues to mesh well with our own, and almost impossible to completely ignore supposedly extraneous information. But we are hiring for academic jobs, and what should matter are research and teaching ability. Of course, I’ve been lucky: I already had a permanent job when I started blogging, and I work in the UK system which doesn’t have a tenure review process. And I admit this blog has steered clear of truly controversial topics (depending on what you think of Bayesian probability, at least). ### Andrew Jaffe - Leaves on the Line The next generation of large satellites: PRISM and/or eLISA? Today was the deadline for submitting so-called “White Papers” proposing the next generation of the European Space Agency satellite missions. Because of the long lead times for these sorts of complicated technical achievements, this call is for launches in the faraway years of 2028 or 2034. (These dates would be harder to wrap my head around if I weren’t writing this on the same weekend that I’m attending the 25th reunion of my university graduation, an event about which it’s difficult to avoid the clichéd thought that May, 1988 feels like the day before yesterday.) At least two of the ideas are particularly close to my scientific heart. The Polarized Radiation Imaging and Spectroscopy Mission (PRISM) is a cosmic microwave background (CMB) telescope, following on from Planck and the current generation of sub-orbital telescopes like EBEX and PolarBear: whereas Planck has 72 detectors observing the sky over nine frequencies on the sky, PRISM would have more than 7000 detectors working in a similar way to Planck over 32 frequencies, along with another set observing 300 narrow frequency bands, and another instrument dedicated to measuring the spectrum of the CMB in even more detail. Combined, these instruments allow a wide variety of cosmological and astrophysical goals, concentrating on more direct observations of early Universe physics than possible with current instruments, in particular the possible background of gravitational waves from inflation, and the small correlations induced by the physics of inflation and other physical processes in the history of the Universe. The eLISA mission is the latest attempt to build a gravitational radiation observatory in space, observing astrophysical sources rather than the primordial background affecting the CMB, using giant lasers to measure the distance between three separate free-floating satellites a million kilometres apart from one another. As a gravitational wave passes through the triangle, it bends space and effectively changes the distance between them. The trio would thereby be sensitive to the gravitational waves produced by small, dense objects orbiting one another, objects like white dwarfs, neutron stars and, most excitingly, black holes. This would give us a probe of physics in locations we can’t see with ordinary light, and in regimes that we can’t reproduce on earth or anywhere nearby. In the selection process, ESA is supposed to take into account the interests of the community. Hence both of these missions are soliciting support, of active and interested scientists and also the more general public: check out the sites for PRISM and eLISA. It’s a tough call. Both cases would be more convincing with a detection of gravitational radiation in their respective regimes, but the process requires putting down a marker early on. In the long term, a CMB mission like PRISM seems inevitable — there are unlikely to be any technical showstoppers — it’s just a big telescope in a slightly unusual range of frequencies. eLISA is more technically challenging: the LISA Pathfinder effort has shown just how hard it is to keep and monitor a free-floating mass in space, and the lack of a detection so far from the ground-based LIGO observatory, although completely consistent with expectations, has kept the community’s enthusiasm lower. (This will likely change with Advanced LIGO, expected to see many hundreds of sources as soon as it comes online in 2015 or thereabouts.) Full disclosure: although I’ve signed up to support both, I’m directly involved in the PRISM white paper. ## December 07, 2013 ### Clifford V. Johnson - Asymptotia Lunch Time in Colour Finished the inks and threw some (digital) paints over the lunch group. I think it's time to move on to another part of The Project. I've spent far too long fiddling with the light in this. -cvj Click to continue reading this post ### Marco Frasca - The Gauge Connection That strange behavior of supersymmetry… I am a careful reader of scientific literature and an avid searcher for already published material in peer reviewed journals. Of course, arxiv is essential to accomplish this task and to satisfy my needs for reading. In these days, I am working on Dyson-Schwinger equations. I have written on this a paper (see here) a few years ago but this work is in strong need to be revised. Maybe, some of these days I will take the challenge. Googling around and looking for the Dyson-Schwinger equations applied to the well-known supersymmetric model due to Wess and Zumino, I have uncovered a very exciting track of research that uses Dyson-Schwinger equations to produce exact results in quantum field theory. The paper I have got was authored by Marc Bellon, Gustavo Lozano and Fidel Schaposnik and can be found here. These authors get the Dyson-Schwinger equations for the Wess-Zumino model at one loop and manage to compute the self-energies of the involved fields: A scalar, a fermion and an auxiliary bosonic field. Their equations are yielded for three different self-energies, different for each field. Self-energies are essential in quantum field theory as they introduce corrections to masses in a propagator and so enters into the physical part of an object that is not an observable. Now, if you are in a symmetric theory like the Wess-Zumino model, such a symmetry, if it is not broken, will yield equal masses to all the components of the multiplet entering into the theory. This means that if you start with the assumption that in this case all the self-energies are equal, you are doing a consistent approximation. This is what Bellon, Lozano and Schaposnik just did. They assumed from the start that all the self-energies are equal for the Dyson Schwinger equations they get and go on with their computations. This choice leaves an open question: What if do I choose different self-energies from the start? Will the Dyson-Schwiner equations drive the solution toward the symmetric one? This question is really interesting as the model considered is not exactly the one that Witten analysed in his famous paper on 1982 on breaking of a supersymmetry (you can download his paper here). Supersymmetric model generates non-linear terms and could be amenable to spontaneous symmetry breaking, provided the Witten index has the proper values. The question I asked is strongly related to the idea of a supersymmetry breaking at the bootstrap: Supersymmetry is responsible for its breaking. So, I managed to numerically solve Dyson-Schwinger equations for the Wess-Zumino model as yielded by Bellon, Lozano and Schaposnik and presented the results in a paper (see here). If you solve them assuming from the start all the self-energies are equal you get the following figure for coupling running from 0.25 to 100 (weak to strong): It does not matter the way you modify your parameters in the Dyson-Schwinger equations. Choosing them all equal from the start makes them equal forever. This is a consistent choice and this solution exists. But now, try to choose all different self-energies. You will get the following figure for the same couplings: This is really nice. You see that exist also solutions with all different self-energies and supersymmetry may be broken in this model. This kind of solutions has been missed by the authors. What one can see here is that supersymmetry is preserved for small couplings, even if we started with all different self-energies, but is broken as the coupling becomes stronger. This result is really striking and unexpected. It is in agreement with the results presented here. I hope to extend this analysis to more mundane theories to analyse behaviours that are currently discussed in literature but never checked for. For these aims there are very powerful tools developed for Mathematica by Markus Huber, Jens Braun and Mario Mitter to get and numerically solve Dyson-Schwinger equations: DoFun anc CrasyDSE (thanks to Markus Huber for help). I suggest to play with them for numerical explorations. Marc Bellon, Gustavo S. Lozano, & Fidel A. Schaposnik (2007). Higher loop renormalization of a supersymmetric field theory Phys.Lett.B650:293-297,2007 arXiv: hep-th/0703185v1 Edward Witten (1982). Constraints on Supersymmetry Breaking Nuclear Physics B, 202, 253-316 DOI: 10.1016/0550-3213(82)90071-2 Marco Frasca (2013). Numerical study of the Dyson-Schwinger equations for the Wess-Zumino model arXiv arXiv: 1311.7376v1 Marco Frasca (2012). Chiral Wess-Zumino model and breaking of supersymmetry arXiv arXiv: 1211.1039v1 Markus Q. Huber, & Jens Braun (2011). Algorithmic derivation of functional renormalization group equations and Dyson-Schwinger equations Computer Physics Communications, 183 (6), 1290-1320 arXiv: 1102.5307v2 Markus Q. Huber, & Mario Mitter (2011). CrasyDSE: A framework for solving Dyson-Schwinger equations arXiv arXiv: 1112.5622v2 Filed under: Computer Science, Particle Physics, Physics Tagged: Dyson-Schwinger equations, Supersymmetry, Supersymmetry breaking, Wess-Zumino model, Witten index ### Andrew Jaffe - Leaves on the Line Teaching mistakes The academic year has begun, and I’m teaching our second-year Quantum Mechanics course again. I was pretty happy with last year’s version, and the students didn’t completely disagree. This year, there have been a few changes to the structure of the course — although not as much to the content as I might have liked (“if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, although I’d still love to use more of the elegant Dirac notation and perhaps discuss quantum information a bit more). We’ve moved some of the material to the first year, so the students should already come into the course with at least some exposure to the famous Schrödinger Equation which describes the evolution of the quantum wave function. But of course all lecturers treat this material slightly differently, so I’ve tried to revisit some of that material in my own language, although perhaps a bit too quickly. Perhaps more importantly, we’ve also changed the tutorial system. We used to attempt an imperfect rendition of the Oxbridge small-group tutorial system, but we’ve moved to something with larger groups and (we hope) a more consistent presentation of the material. We’re only on the second term with this new system, so the jury is still out, both in terms of the students’ reactions, and our own. Perhaps surprisingly, they do like the fact that there is more assessed (i.e., explicitly graded, counting towards the final mark in the course) material — coming from the US system, I would like to see yet more of this, while those brought up on the UK system prefer the final exam to carry most (ideally all!) the weight. So far I’ve given three lectures, including a last-minute swap yesterday. The first lecture — mostly content-free — went pretty well, but I’m not too happy with my performance on the last two: I’ve made a mistake in each of the last two lectures. I’ve heard people say that the students don’t mind a few (corrected) mistakes; it humanises the teachers. But I suspect that the students would, on the whole, prefer less-human, more perfect, lecturing… Yesterday, we were talking about a particle trapped in a finite potential well — that is, a particle confined to be in a box, but (because of the weirdness of quantum mechanics) with some probability of being found outside. That probability depends upon the energy of the particle, and because of the details of the way I defined that energy (starting at a negative number, instead of the more natural value of zero), I got confused about the signs of some of the quantities I was dealing with. I explained the concepts (I think) completely correctly, but with mistakes in the math behind them, the students (and me) got confused about the details. But many, many thanks to the students who kept pressing me on the issue and helped us puzzle out the problems. Today’s mistake was less conceptual, but no less annoying — I wrote (and said) “cotangent” when I meant “tangent” (and vice versa). In my notes, this was all completely correct, but when you’re standing up in front of 200 or so students, sometimes you miss the detail on the page in front of you. Again, this was in some sense just a mathematical detail, but (as we always stress) without the right math, you can’t really understand the concepts. So, thanks to the students who saw that I was making a mistake, and my apologies to the whole class. ### arXiv blog ### astrobites - astro-ph reader's digest UR #11: Our Galactic Magnetic Field and Stellar Autopsies The undergrad research series is where we feature the research that you’re doing. If you’ve missed the previous installments, you can find them under the “Undergraduate Research” category here. Did you do a summer REU? Working on your senior thesis? Getting an early start on a research project? We want to hear from you! Think you’re up to the challenge of describing your research carefully and clearly to a broad audience, in only one paragraph? Then send us a summary of it! You can share what you’re doing by clicking on the “Your Research” tab above (or by clicking here) and using the form provided to submit a brief (fewer than 200 words) write-up of your work. The target audience is one familiar with astrophysics but not necessarily your specific subfield, so write clearly and try to avoid jargon. Feel free to also include either a visual regarding your research or else a photo of yourself. We look forward to hearing from you! ************ Anna Ho Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Anna is a senior at MIT, majoring in physics. During the past two summers, she worked with Scott Ransom through the National Radio Astronomy Observatory REU program, and is currently preparing this work for publication. The line-of-sight component of the galactic magnetic field strength, for 24 of the 35 millisecond pulsars in the globular cluster Terzan 5 (the 25th is not pictured, in order to more clearly show the gradient.) The field strength changes by 15-20% across the cluster, representing 0.1 µG variations across parsec scales. Rotation Measures for Globular Cluster Pulsars as a Unique Probe of the Galactic Magnetic Field As it travels through a magnetic field, a linearly-polarized signal rotates through an angle that is linearly proportional to its wavelength. The scaling factor is called the “rotation measure” (RM) and is a function of both the electron density and the magnetic field strength along the line of sight to the source. We have measured highly-precise RMs for 25 of the 35 millisecond pulsars (MSPs) in the globular cluster Terzan 5, using Green Bank Telescope radio observations at 1.5 GHz and 2 GHz. For each MSP, we use the ratio of RM to electron column density (dispersion measure) to extract the average magnetic field strength along the line of sight to the source. We find that the field strength varies by 15-20% across the cluster, indicating 0.1 µG fluctuations on parsec (several light-year) scales. This represents the first use of dense pulsar populations to probe the small-scale structure of the galactic magnetic field. ************ Ashley Villar Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Ashley is a physics major at MIT in Cambridge, MA. She conducted this study with Prof. Alicia Soderberg and her team in the summer of 2013 during the CfA REU program. Stellar Autopsies Core-collapse supernovae (SNe) are highly energetic, cosmic explosions caused by the death of massive stars. Long gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are fast transients comparable to supernovae in electromagnetic energy. Recently, the two have been observationally linked. We currently believe that these simultaneous events are caused by the collapse of Wolfe-Rayet stars in which a fraction of the ejected material is funneled into a relativistic jet in our line-of-sight. This scenario has intrinsic variability which may depend on mass of the progenitor, the angular momentum, and asymmetries within the explosion. To explore the possibility of asymmetry, we study two supernovae associated with GRBs, SN 2006aj and SN 2003dh, which lie on far ends of the GRB-SNe spectrum. These objects were both extensively studied and modeled using data obtained shortly after peak magnitude, when the temperature of the explosion was high and the optical opacity was large. We study these objects when the optical opacity lowers and deeper layers of the explosion become visible. If asymmetry exists, using spherically symmetric models during different time frames should lead to inconsistent solutions. This study finds no discrepancy, so the explosions are likely to be relatively isotropic. ### Geraint Lewis - Cosmic Horizons The large-scale structure of the halo of the Andromeda Galaxy Part I: global stellar density, morphology and metallicity properties And now for a major paper from the Pan-Andromeda Archaeological Survey (PAndAS), led by astronomer-extraordinare Rodrigo Ibata. I've written a lot about PAndAS over the years (or maybe a year and a bit I've been blogging here) and we've discovered an awful lot, but one of the key things we wanted to do is measure the size and shape of the stellar halo of the Andromeda Galaxy. The stellar halo is an interesting place. It's basically made up of the first generation of stars that formed in the dark matter halo in which the spiral galaxy of Andromeda was born, and the properties of the halo are a measure of the formation history of the galaxy, something we can directly compare to our theoretical models. But there is always a spanner in the works, and in this case it is the fact that Andromeda, like the Milky Way, is a cannibal and has been eating smaller galaxies. These little galaxies get ripped apart by the gravitational pull of Andromeda, and their stars litter the halo in streams and clumps. As we've seen before, Andromeda has a lot of this debris scattered all over the place. So, we are left with a problem, namely how do we see the stellar halo, which is quite diffuse and faint, underneath the prominent substructure? This is where this paper comes in. Well, the first thing is to collect the data, and that's where PAndAS comes in. The below picture confirms just how big the PAndAS survey is, and just how long it took us to get data. It always amazes me how small the spiral disk of Andromeda is compared to the area we surveyed, but that's what we need to see the stellar halo which should be a couple of hundred kiloparsecs in extent. Taking the data is only the first step. The next step, the calibration of the data, was, well, painful. I won't go into the detail here, but if you are going to look for faint things, you really need to understand your data at the limit, to understand what's a star, what's a galaxy, what's just noise. There are lots of things you need to consider to make sure the data is nice, uniform and calibrated. But that's what we did :) Once you've done that, we can ask where the stars are. And here they are; As you can see, chunks and bumps everywhere, all the dinner leftovers of the cannibal Andromeda. And all of that stuff is in the way of finding the halo! What do we do? We have to mask out the substructure and search for the underlaying halo. We are in luck, however, as we don't have one map of substructure, we have a few of them. Why? Well, I've written about this before, but the stars in the substructure come from different sized objects, and so them chemical history will be different; in little systems, the heavy elements produced in supernova explosions are not held by their gravitational pull, and so they can be relatively "metal poor", but in larger systems the gas can't escape and gets mixed into the next generation of stars, making them more "metal-rich". So, here's our masks as a function of the iron abundance compared to hydrogen. We see that the giant stream is more metal rich, but as we go to metal poor we see the more extensive substructure, including the South West Cloud. What do we find? Well, we see the halo (horrah!) and it does what it should - it is brightest near the main body of Andromeda, but gets fainter and fainter towards the edge. Here's a picture of the profile: It's hard to explain just how faint the halo is, but it is big, basically stretching out to the edge of our PAndAS data, and then beyond, and looks like it accounts for roughly 10% of the stellar mass in Andromeda. It is not inconsequential! But as we started out noting, its properties provide important clues to the very process of galaxy formation. And it appears that it looks like we would expect from our models of structure formation, with large galaxies being built over time through the accretion of smaller systems. We're working on a few new tests of the halo, and should hopefully have some more results soon. But for now, well done Rod! # The large-scale structure of the halo of the Andromeda Galaxy Part I: global stellar density, morphology and metallicity properties We present an analysis of the large-scale structure of the halo of the Andromeda galaxy, based on the Pan-Andromeda Archeological Survey (PAndAS), currently the most complete map of resolved stellar populations in any galactic halo. Despite copious substructure, the global halo populations follow closely power law profiles that become steeper with increasing metallicity. We divide the sample into stream-like populations and a smooth halo component. Fitting a three-dimensional halo model reveals that the most metal-poor populations ([Fe/H]<-1.7) are distributed approximately spherically (slightly prolate with ellipticity c/a=1.09+/-0.03), with only a relatively small fraction (42%) residing in discernible stream-like structures. The sphericity of the ancient smooth component strongly hints that the dark matter halo is also approximately spherical. More metal-rich populations contain higher fractions of stars in streams (86% for [Fe/H]>-0.6). The space density of the smooth metal-poor component has a global power-law slope of -3.08+/-0.07, and a non-parametric fit shows that the slope remains nearly constant from 30kpc to 300kpc. The total stellar mass in the halo at distances beyond 2 degrees is 1.1x10^10 Solar masses, while that of the smooth component is 3x10^9 Solar masses. Extrapolating into the inner galaxy, the total stellar mass of the smooth halo is plausibly 8x10^9 Solar masses. We detect a substantial metallicity gradient, which declines from [Fe/H]=-0.7 at R=30kpc to [Fe/H]=-1.5 at R=150kpc for the full sample, with the smooth halo being 0.2dex more metal poor than the full sample at each radius. While qualitatively in-line with expectations from cosmological simulations, these observations are of great importance as they provide a prototype template that such simulations must now be able to reproduce in quantitative detail. ## December 06, 2013 ### Quantum Diaries Has there ever been a paradigm shift? Yes, once! Paradigm and paradigm shift are so over used and misused that the world would benefit if they were simply banned. Originally Thomas Kuhn (1922–1996) in his 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, used the word paradigm to refer to the set of practices that define a scientific discipline at any particular period of time. A paradigm shift is when the entire structure of a field changes, not when someone simply uses a different mathematical formulation. Perhaps it is just grandiosity, everyone thinking their latest idea is earth shaking (or paradigm shifting), but the idea has been so debased that almost any change is called a paradigm shift, down to level of changing the color of ones socks. The archetypal example, and I would suggest the only real example in the natural and physical sciences, is the paradigm shift from Aristotelian to Newtonian physics. This was not just a change in physics from the perfect motion is circular to an object either is at rest or moves at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force but a change in how knowledge is defined and acquired. There is more here than a different description of motion; the very concept of what is important has changed. In Newtonian physics there is no place for perfect motion but only rules to describe how objects actually behave. Newtonian physics was driven by observation. Newton, himself, went further and claimed his results were derived from observation. While Aristotelian physics is broadly consistent with observation it is driven more by abstract concepts like perfection. Aristotle (384 BCE – 322 BCE) would most likely have considered Galileo Galilei’s (1564 – 1642) careful experiments beneath him. Socrates (c. 469 BC – 399 BC) certainly would have. Their epistemology was not based on careful observation. While there have been major changes in the physical sciences since Newton, they do not reach the threshold needed to call them a paradigm shifts since they are all within the paradigm defined by the scientific method. I would suggest Kuhn was misled by the Aristotle-Newton example where, indeed, the two approaches are incommensurate: What constitutes a reasonable explanation is simply different for the two men. But would the same be true with Michael Faraday (1791 – 1867) and Niels Bohr (1885–1962) who were chronologically on opposite sides of the quantum mechanics cataclysm? One could easily imagine Faraday, transported in time, having a fruitful discussion with Bohr. While the quantum revolution was indeed cataclysmic, changing mankind’s basic understanding of how the universe worked, it was based on the same concept of knowledge as Newtonian physics. You make models based on observations and validate them through testable predictions. The pre-cataclysmic scientists understood the need for change due to failed predictions, even if, like Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955) or Erwin Schrödinger (1887 – 1961), they found quantum mechanics repugnant. The phenomenology was too powerful to ignore. Sir Karl Popper (1902 – 1994) provided another ingredients missed by Kuhn, the idea that science advances by the bold new hypothesis, not by deducing models from observation. The Bohr model of the atom was a bold hypothesis not a paradigm shift, a bold hypothesis refined by other scientists and tested in the crucible of careful observation. I would also suggest that Kuhn did not understand the role of simplicity in making scientific models unique. It is true that one can always make an old model agree with past observations by making it more complex[1]. This process frequently has the side effect of reducing the old models ability to make predictions. It is to remedy these problems that a bold new hypothesis is needed. But to be successful, the bold new hypothesis should be simpler than the modified version of the original model and more crucially must make testable predictions that are confirmed by observation. But even then, it is not a paradigm shift; just a verified bold new hypothesis. Despite the nay-saying, Kuhn’s ideas did advance the understanding of the scientific method. In particular, it was a good antidote to the logical positivists who wanted to eliminate the role of the model or what Kuhn called the paradigm altogether. Kuhn made the point that is the framework that gives meaning to observations. Combined with Popper’s insights, Kuhn’s ideas paved the way for a fairly comprehensive understanding of the scientific method. But back to the overused word paradigm, it would be nice if we could turn back the clock and restrict the term paradigm shift to those changes where the before and after are truly incommensurate; where there is no common ground to decide which is better. Or if you like, the demarcation criteria for a paradigm shift is that the before and after are incommensurate[2]. That would rule out the change of sock color from being a paradigm shift. However, we cannot turn back the clock so I will go back to my first suggestion that the word be banned. To receive a notice of future posts follow me on Twitter: @musquod. [1] This is known as the Duhem-Quine thesis. [2] There are probably paradigm shifts, even in the restricted meaning of the word, if we go outside science. The French revolution could be considered a paradigm shift in the relation between the populace and the state. ### astrobites - astro-ph reader's digest Finding Relics of Galaxy Formation A schematic illustration of galaxy morphological components. This shows the spiral arms and bulge of a spiral galaxy. Most galaxies generally fall into two morphological types: spirals and ellipticals. Spiral galaxies are flat, thin disks, with several spiral arms, a central stellar bulge, and possibly a central bar. Elliptical galaxies are smooth, featureless, semi-spherical distributions of stars. Both types have a central nucleus which is believed to house a super massive black hole. Why do galaxies separate into these distinct populations? How do they form? We aren’t completely sure, but the best theory to date is the hierarchical model of galaxy formation. In this model, galaxies formed in the early universe from the gradual accretion of many smaller galaxy-like clumps of stars, the galaxy “building blocks”. In fact, when we look out to the early universe, the galaxies that we see do appear to be smaller and less well-defined than galaxies in the present universe. Of course, not every galaxy falls into one of these two morphological categories. A good deal are actually “irregular” galaxies that don’t show any of the clear morphological components of either spirals or ellipticals. The contention of this paper is that some of these irregular galaxies might actually be aged versions of those galactic building blocks that have survived to the present day. The authors use the Sloan Digital Sky Survey data set to search for these sorts of galaxies in the nearby universe. An example of an elliptical galaxy (top) and a spiral galaxy (bottom). Note the spiral galaxy’s central bar and spiral arms. Identifying “Genuine Irregular Galaxies” Maybe some protogalaxy building blocks survived to the present day, but the trouble in finding them is that we know that irregular galaxies can be formed when ordinary galaxies have their morphologies disturbed when they crash into one another. A big part of the data analysis in this paper is dedicated to separating interacting irregular galaxies from genuine irregular galaxies (GIGs). Merging galaxies are fairly easy to identify as two galaxies either colliding or passing close to one another, disturbing each other gravitationally. Galaxies that have recently merged are merger remnants and they appear elongated, with wispy tails. The authors use the criteria that the galaxy should not be interacting or show evidence of recent interaction, should not have a central bulge, bar, spiral arms, or nucleus, have no nearby partner galaxies, and should not have the smooth light curve of an elliptical galaxy. Altogether this narrows down their sample of GIGs to 33 objects from the SDSS data set, excluding about 50% of galaxies that were otherwise categorized as irregular. These galaxies do appear to be genuinely irregular: they still have a large fraction of gas, meaning that they haven’t converted all their gas to stars yet; they don’t have a large abundance of heavier elements, meaning that their composition is closer to the primordial abundance of the early universe; they also appear to be less massive, less bright, and smaller than typical galaxies at this redshift. The lack of a bulge in these galaxies indicates that they have not formed a supermassive black hole, either. All of this points to the fact that these galaxies are still at an early evolutionary phase, and they could help us understand something of the initial building blocks that came together to form spirals and ellipticals; this can in turn help us understand how galaxies form. This study also demonstrates that simple irregular morphological classification doesn’t distinguish between galaxies that are irregular due to interaction and those which are genuinely irregular. Some of the galaxies classified as genuinely irregular. Notice the lack of smooth stellar distributions and absence of spiral arms, bars, or central nuclei. From Figure 6 in the text. ### Sean Carroll - Preposterous Universe The Spark in the Park A few years ago, not long after we moved to LA, Jennifer and I got a call from some of the writers on the TV series BONES. There’s already a science component to the show, which features brainy forensic anthropologist Brennan (Emily Deschanel) and her team of lab mates working with fiery FBI agent Booth (David Boreanaz) to solve crimes, most of which involve skeletons and physical evidence in some crucial way. This time they needed some physics input, as they wanted the murderer to be a researcher who used their physics expertise to carry out the crime, and were looking for unusual but realistic ideas. We were able to provide some crucial sociological advice (no, professional research scientists probably wouldn’t meet at a Mensa conference) and consulted with experimentalist friends who would know how to use radioactive substances in potentially lethal ways. I won’t say who, exactly, but when the episode aired they ended up calling the research institute the Collar Lab. Apparently physicists are a suspiciously violent bunch, because tonight’s episode features another scientist suspect, this time played by Richard Schiff of West Wing fame. I got a chance to consult once again, and this time contributed something a bit more tangible to the set: a collection of blackboards in the physicist’s office. (Which, as in all Hollywood conceptions, is a lot more spacious and ornate than any real physicist’s office I’ve ever seen.) You can see the actual work tonight (8pm ET/PT on Fox), but here’s one that I made up that they didn’t end up using. It does look like our professor is a theoretical cosmologist of some sort, doesn’t it? The equations here will be familiar to anyone who has carefully read “Dynamical Compactification from de Sitter Space.” The boards that actually will appear on the show are taken mostly from “Attractor Solutions in Scalar-Field Cosmology” and “A Consistent Effective Theory of Long-Wavelength Cosmological Perturbations.” Hey, if I’m going to write down a bunch of equations, they might as well be my equations, right? But I actually got to be a little more than just a technical scribe. (Although that’s not an unimportant role — not only are the equations themselves gibberish to non-experts, it’s difficult for someone who isn’t familiar with the notation to even accurately transcribe the individual symbols.) No spoilers, but the equation-laden blackboards actually play a prominent role in a scene that appears late in the episode, so I was able to provide an infinitesimally tiny amount of creative input. And the scene itself (the overall conception of which belongs to writers Emily Silver and Stephen Nathan) packs quite an emotional wallop, something not typically associated with a series of equations. I haven’t seen the finished episode yet, but it was a great experience to actually be present on set during filming and watch the sausage being made. ### CERN Bulletin Offers The « Théâtre de Carouge » offers a 5.- CHF discount for all shows (30.- CHF instead of 35.- CHF) and for the season tickets "Premières représentations" (132.- CHF instead of 162.- CHF) and "Classique" (150.- CHF instead of 180.- CHF). Please send your reservation by email to smills@tcag.ch via your professional email address. Please indicate the date of your reservation, your name and firstname and your telephone number A confirmation will be sent by email. Your membership card will be asked when you collect the tickets. More information on www.tcag.ch and www.tcag.ch/blog/ ### Matt Strassler - Of Particular Significance No Comet, But Two Crescents I’m sure you’ve all read in books that Venus is a planet that orbits the Sun and is closer to the Sun than is the Earth. But why learn from books what you can check for yourself?!? [Note: If you missed Wednesday evening's discussion of particle physics involving me, Sean Carroll and Alan Boyle, you can listen to it here.] As many feared, Comet ISON didn’t survive its close visit to the Sun, so there’s no reason to get up at 6 in the morning to go looking for it. [You might want to look for dim but pretty Comet Lovejoy, however, barely visible to the naked eye from dark skies.] At 6 in the evening, however, there’s good reason to be looking in the western skies — the Moon (for the next few days) and Venus (for the next few weeks) are shining brightly there. Right now Venus is about as bright as it ever gets during its cycle. The very best way to look at them is with binoculars, or a small telescope. Easily with the telescope, and less easily with binoculars (you’ll need steady hands and sharp eyes, so be patient) you should be able to see that it’s not just the Moon that forms a crescent right now: Venus does too! If you watch Venus in your binoculars or telescope over the next few weeks, you’ll see proof, with your own eyes, that Venus, like the Earth, orbits the Sun, and it does so at a distance smaller than the distance from the Sun to Earth. The proof is simple enough, and Galileo himself provided it, by pointing his rudimentary telescope at the Sun 400 years ago, and watching Venus carefully, week by week. What he saw was this: that when Venus was in the evening sky (every few months it moves from the evening sky to the morning sky, and then back again; it’s never in both), • it was first rather dim, low in the sky at sunset, and nearly a disk, though a rather small one; • then it would grow bright, larger, high in the sky at sunset, and develop a half-moon and then a crescent shape; • and finally it would drop lower in the sky again at sunset, still rather bright, but now a thin crescent that was even larger from tip to tip than before. The reason for this is illustrated in the figure below, taken from this post [which, although specific in some ways to the sky in February 2012, still has a number of general observations about the skies that apply at any time.] A planet (such as Mercury or Venus) with an orbit that is smaller than Earth’s has phases like the Moon. The portion of Venus that is lit is a half-sphere (shown in light color); the portion of Venus we can see is a different half-sphere (dashed red lines); the overlap is shaped like the wedge of an orange and looks like a crescent in the sky. But unlike the Moon, which is at a nearly fixed distance from Earth, such a planet appears to grow and shrink during its orbit round the Sun, due to its changing distance from Earth. It is always largest when a crescent and smallest when full, and is brightest somewhere in between. So go dig out those binoculars and telescopes, or use Venus as an excuse to buy new ones! Watch Venus, week by week, as it grows larger in the sky and becomes a thinner crescent, moving ever closer to the sunset horizon. And a month from now the Moon, having made its orbit round the Earth, will return as a new crescent for you to admire. Of course there’s another proof that Venus is closer to the Sun than Earth is: on very rare occasions Venus passes directly between the Earth and the Sun. No more of those “transits” for a long time I’m afraid, but you can see pictures of last June’s transit here, and read about the great scientific value of such transits here Filed under: Astronomy Tagged: astronomy, moon, venus ### Quantum Diaries One giant leap for the Higgs boson Both the ATLAS and CMS collaborations at CERN have now shown solid evidence that the new particle discovered in July 2012 behaves even more like the Higgs boson, by establishing that it also decays into particles known as tau leptons, a very heavy version of electrons. Why is this so important? CMS and ATLAS had already established that the new boson was indeed one type of a Higgs boson. In that case, theory predicted it should decay into several types of particles. So far, decays into W and Z bosons as well as photons were well established. Now, for the first time, both experiments have evidence that it also decays into tau leptons. The decay of a particle is very much like making change for a coin. If the Higgs boson were a one euro coin, there would be several ways to break it up into smaller coins, but, so far, the change machine seemed to only make change in some particular ways. Now, additional evidence for one more way has been shown. There are two classes of fundamental particles, called fermions and bosons depending on their spin, their value of angular momentum. Particles of matter (like taus, electrons and quarks) belong to the fermion family. On the other hand, the particles associated with the various forces acting upon these fermions are bosons (like the photons and the W and Z bosons.). The CMS experiment had already shown evidence for Higgs boson decays into fermions last summer with a signal of 3.4 sigma when combining the tau and b quark channels. A sigma corresponds to one standard deviation, the size of potential statistical fluctuations. Three sigma is needed to claim evidence while five sigma is usually required for a discovery. For the first time, there is now solid evidence from a single channel – and two experiments have independently produced it. ATLAS collaboration showed evidence for the tau channel alone with a signal of 4.1 sigma, while CMS obtained 3.4 sigma, both bringing strong evidence that this particular type of decays occurs. Combining their most recent results for taus and b quarks, CMS now has evidence for decays into fermions at the 4.0 sigma level. The data collected by the ATLAS experiment (black dots) are consistent with coming from the sum of all backgrounds (colour histograms) plus contributions from a Higgs boson going into a pair of tau leptons (red curve). Below, the background is subtracted from the data to reveal the most likely mass of the Higgs boson, namely 125 GeV (red curve). CMS is also starting to see decays into pairs of b quarks at the 2.0 sigma-level. While this is still not very significant, it is the first indication for this decay so far at the LHC. The Tevatron experiments have reported seeing it at the 2.8 sigma-level. Although the Higgs boson decays into b quarks about 60% of the time, it comes with so much background that it makes it extremely difficult to measure this particular decay at the LHC. Not only did the experiments report evidence that the Higgs boson decays into tau leptons, but they also measured how often this occurs. The Standard Model, the theory that describes just about everything observed so far in particle physics, states that a Higgs boson should decay into a pair of tau leptons about 8% of the time. CMS measured a value corresponding to 0.87 ± 0.29 times this rate, i.e. a value compatible with 1.0 as expected for the Standard Model Higgs boson. ATLAS obtained 1.4 +0.5 -0.4, which is also consistent within errors with the predicted value of 1.0. One of the events collected by the CMS collaboration having the characteristics expected from the decay of the Standard Model Higgs boson to a pair of tau leptons. One of the taus decays to a muon (red line) and neutrinos (not visible in the detector), while the other tau decays into a charged hadron (blue towers) and a neutrino. There are also two forward-going particle jets (green towers). With these new results, the experiments established one more property that was expected for the Standard Model Higgs boson. What remains to be clarified is the exact type of Higgs boson we are dealing with. Is this indeed the simplest one associated with the Standard Model? Or have we uncovered another type of Higgs boson, the lightest one of the five types of Higgs bosons predicted by another theory called supersymmetry. It is still too early to dismiss the second hypothesis. While the Higgs boson is behaving so far exactly like what is expected for the Standard Model Higgs boson, the measurements lack the precision needed to rule out that it cannot be a supersymmetric type of Higgs boson. Getting a definite answer on this will require more data. This will happen once the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) resumes operation at nearly twice the current energy in 2015 after the current shutdown needed for maintenance and upgrade. Meanwhile, these new results will be refined and finalised. But already they represent one small step for the experiments, a giant leap for the Higgs boson. For all the details, see: Presentation given by the ATLAS Collaboration on 28 November 2013 Presentation given by the CMS Collaboration on 3 December 2013 Pauline Gagnon To be alerted of new postings, follow me on Twitter: @GagnonPauline or sign-up on this mailing list to receive and e-mail notification. ### Quantum Diaries Un pas de géant pour le boson de Higgs Les collaborations ATLAS et CMS du CERN ont maintenant l’évidence que la nouvelle particule découverte en juillet 2012 se comporte de plus en plus comme le boson de Higgs. Les deux expériences viennent en fait de démontrer que le boson de Higgs se désintègre aussi en particules tau, des particules semblables aux électrons mais beaucoup plus lourdes. Pourquoi est-ce si important? CMS et l’ATLAS avaient déjà établi que ce nouveau boson était bien un type de boson de Higgs. Si tel est le cas, la théorie prévoit qu’il doit se désintégrer en plusieurs types de particules. Jusqu’ici, seules les désintégrations en bosons W et Z de même qu’en photons étaient confirmées. Pour la première fois, les deux expériences ont maintenant la preuve qu’il se désintègre aussi en particules tau. La désintégration d’une particule s’apparente beaucoup à faire de la monnaie pour une pièce. Si le boson de Higgs était une pièce d’un euro, il pourrait se briser en différentes pièces de monnaie plus petites. Jusqu’à présent, le distributeur de monnaie semblait seulement donner la monnaie en quelques façons particulières. On a maintenant démontré qu‘il existe une façon supplémentaire. Il y a deux classes de particules fondamentales, appelées fermions et bosons selon la valeur de quantité de mouvement angulaire. Les particules de matière comme les taus, les électrons et les quarks appartiennent tous à la famille des fermions. Par contre, les particules associées aux diverses forces qui agissent sur ces fermions sont des bosons, comme les photons et les bosons W et Z. L”été dernier, l’expérience CMS avait déjà apporté la preuve avec un signal de 3.4 sigma que le boson de Higgs se désintégrait en fermions en combinant leurs résultats pour deux types de fermions, les taus et les quarks b. Un sigma correspond à un écart-type, la taille des fluctuations statistiques potentielles. Trois sigma sont nécessaires pour revendiquer une évidence tandis que cinq sigma sont nécessaires pour clamer une découverte. Pour la première fois, il y a maintenant évidence pour un nouveau canal de désintégration (les taus) – et deux expériences l’ont produit indépendamment. La collaboration ATLAS a montré la preuve pour le canal des taus avec un signal de 4.1 sigma, tandis que CMS a obtenu 3.4 sigma, deux résultats forts prouvant que ce type de désintégrations se produit effectivement. En combinant leurs résultats les plus récents pour les taus et les quarks b, CMS a maintenant une évidence pour des désintégrations en fermions avec 4.0 sigma. Les données rassemblées par l’expérience ATLAS (les points noirs) sont en accord avec la somme de tous les évènements venant du bruit de fond (histogrammes en couleur) en plus des contributions venant d’un boson de Higgs se désintégrant en une paire de taus (la ligne rouge). En dessous, le bruit de fond est soustrait des données pour révéler la masse la plus probable du boson de Higgs, à savoir 125 GeV (la courbe rouge). CMS commence aussi à voir des désintégrations en paires de quarks b avec un signal de 2.0 sigma. Bien que ceci ne soit toujours pas très significatif, c’est la première indication pour cette désintégration jusqu’ici au Grand collisionneur de hadrons (LHC). Les expériences du Tevatron avaient rapporté l’observation de telles désintégrations à 2.8 sigma. Bien que le boson de Higgs se désintègre en quarks b environ 60 % du temps, il y a tant de bruit de fond qu’il est extrêmement difficile de mesurer ces désintégrations au LHC. Non seulement les expériences ont la preuve que le boson de Higgs se désintègre en paires de taus, mais elles mesurent aussi combien de fois ceci arrive. Le Modèle Standard, la théorie qui décrit à peu près tout ce qui a été observé jusqu’à maintenant en physique des particules, stipule qu’un boson de Higgs devrait se désintégrer en une paire de taus environ 8 % du temps. CMS a mesuré une valeur correspondant à 0.87 ± 0.29 fois ce taux, c’est-à-dire une valeur compatible avec 1.0 comme prévu pour le boson de Higgs du Modèle Standard. ATLAS obtient 1.4 +0.5-0.4, ce qui est aussi consistent avec la valeur de 1.0 à l‘intérieur des marges d’erreur. Un des événements captés par la collaboration CMS ayant les caractéristiques attendues pour les désintégrations du boson de Higgs du Modèle Standard en une paire de taus. Un des taus se désintègre en un muon (ligne rouge) et en neutrinos (non visibles dans le détecteur), tandis que l’autre tau se désintègre en hadrons (particules composées de quarks) (tours bleues) et un neutrino. Il y a aussi deux jets de particules vers l’avant (tours vertes). Avec ces nouveaux résultats, les expériences ont établi une propriété de plus prédite pour le boson de Higgs du Modèle Standard. Reste encore à clarifier le type exact de boson de Higgs que nous avons. Est-ce bien le plus simple des bosons, celui associé au Modèle Standard? Ou avons nous découvert un autre type de boson de Higgs, le plus léger des cinq bosons de Higgs prévus par une autre théorie appelée la supersymétrie. Il est encore trop tôt pour écarter cette deuxième hypothèse. Tandis que le boson de Higgs se comporte jusqu’ici exactement comme ce à quoi on s’attend pour le boson de Higgs du Modèle Standard, les mesures manquent encore de précision pour exclure qu’il soit de type supersymétrique. Une réponse définitive exige plus de données. Ceci arrivera une fois que le LHC reprendra du service à presque deux fois l’énergie actuelle en 2015 après l’arrêt actuel pour maintenance et consolidation. En attendant, ces nouveaux résultats seront affinés et finalisés. Déjà ils représentent un petit pas pour les expériences et un bond de géant pour le boson de Higgs. Pour tous les détails (en anglais seulement) Présentation donnée par la collaboration ATLAS le 28 novembre 2013 Présentation donnée par la collaboration CMS le 3 décembre 2013 Pauline Gagnon Pour être averti-e lors de la parution de nouveaux blogs, suivez-moi sur Twitter: @GagnonPauline ou par e-mail en ajoutant votre nom à cette liste de distribution. ### CERN Bulletin "Particle Fever": avant-premiere at CERN Main auditorium on 10 December, at 19:30 CERN people will have the chance to see a preview of the film "Particle Fever" in CERN's main auditorium on Tuesday 10 December at 19:30. The director, Mark Levinson, will be in attendance to speak with the audience about the film after the screening. CERN and its experiments have been the focus of innumerable television documentaries, news reports, and other media productions. However, until now, no film about the search for the Higgs Boson has been made for theatrical release in the classic documentary tradition. "Particle Fever" has received numerous awards and travelled to festivals around the world, where it has consistently played to sell-out audiences. The film will begin a commercial theatrical run in the United States in early 2014, but CERN people have the chance to see a preview in the CERN main auditorium on Tuesday, 10 December at 19:30. The director, Mark Levinson, has worked on films such as "The English Patient" and "Cold Mountain", but he also has a PhD in physics. Mark will be in attendance to speak with the audience about the film after the screening. ### CERN Bulletin CinéGlobe invites you to participate in a poster design competition For its 2014 publicity campaign, CinéGlobe invites CERN people to participate in a poster design competition. The entries are now on display on the Pas Perdus in the main building, and the CERNois are invited to vote for their favourites. CinéGlobe is the international festival of short films inspired by science that takes place every two years at CERN, in the Globe of Science and Innovation. From 18 to 23 March 2014, CERN will host the fourth edition of the festival. The mission of the CinéGlobe Film Festival is to challenge the commonly perceived divisions between science and art by demonstrating that they are both essential to interpreting our world. Open to short film creators from around the world, the CinéGlobe festival is truly international, the first three editions having attracted more than 4,000 entries from more than 100 countries around the globe. In addition to screening some 60 short films, CinéGlobe also hosts musical events, special feature film screenings and panel discussions, open to all both inside and outside CERN. To vote for the best poster, use the ballot box on the Pas Perdus. For further information, please email info@cineglobe.ch. ### CERN Bulletin Interfon www.interfon.fr Rendez-vous sur notre site pour toutes les « News » Interfon « News » « Nouveaux partenaires chez Interfon » Sociétaire Interfon ! Profitez des conditions particulières de nos nouveaux fournisseurs. Les avantages Db Acoustic : laboratoire équipé des outils les plus récents, bilan auditif gratuit, hautes technologies aux meilleurs prix, essai gratuit d’une aide auditif pendant 3 semaines, protection anti-bruit / anti-eau sur mesure, prêt d’un appareil en cas de panne. Plus de renseignements : Damien Boch, audioprothésiste DE, 8 ans d’expérience en Suisse. Tél. (+33) 09 50 37 04 40 - email : damien.boch@db-acoustic.fr Remise aux sociétaires 7 % dB Acoustic Monsieur Boch Damien 34, Avenue de la République 01630 – Saint-Genis-Pouilly Y.O.C.O Estate SARL 13B chemin du Levant, 01210 Ferney-Voltaire Y.O.C.O Estate / Bassin Lémanique, Pays de Gex et Haute-Savoie L’immobilier sur mesure personnalisé : nous ne vendons pas une maison, un appartement, un terrain… Nous trouvons le bien immobilier qui correspond à vos attentes, nous établissons une recherche sur mesure. Fini le casse tête pour trouver son bien immobilier, ou la perte de temps passé à effectuer des visites non ciblées sur son temps de travail et sur sa vie privée, Finies les inquiétudes pour trouver son bon emplacement dans une région avec son marché de l’immobilier complexe. Confiez votre projet à Mr Estier Ludovic : Ludovic.estier@yocoestate.com - +33 (0) 6 25 78 35 33 5 % de remise aux sociétaires (sur le montant TTC de votre prestation) www.yocoestate.com Fermeture des bureaux pour les fêtes de fin d’année Nos bureaux seront fermés pour : le bureau du CERN : du samedi 21 décembre au dimanche 5 janvier 2014 inclus. le bureau de Saint-Genis-Pouilly : du mardi 24 décembre au dimanche 5 janvier 2014 inclus. Réouverture le lundi 6 janvier 2014 « Bonnes vacances à tous » Permanences du CERN (Bât 504) : Interfon : du lundi au vendredi (12 h 30 à 15 h 30) tél. 73339 e-mail : interfon@cern.ch. Mutuelle : les jeudis « semaines impaires » (13 h 00 à 15 h 30) tél. 73939, e-mail : interfon@adrea-paysdelain.fr. Bureaux du Technoparc à Saint-Genis-Pouilly : Interfon et Mutuelle : du lundi au vendredi (13 h 30 à 17 h 30) Coopérative : 04 50 42 28 93 interfon@cern.ch Mutuelle : 04 50 42 74 57 interfon@adrea-paysdelain.fr. ### CERN Bulletin Do not miss the Announcements and Events sections of the Bulletin! The infirmary closure, the start of Horizon 2020, information on the CERN car stickers 2014, an exclusive avant-première, and the Globe Christmas lecture... this information is FOR YOU! ### Lubos Motl - string vacua and pheno Doubly protected Higgs is naturally natural Nathaniel Craig (now Rutgers) and Kiel Howe (Stanford) released an interesting preprint Doubling down on naturalness with a supersymmetric twin Higgs which provides a very nice explicit example why one should never be too ambitious when deducing consequences of naturalness – why "small unnaturalness" is never a problem or a problem that may be solved by a better model. They consider an extension of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model which protects the Higgs boson by two protection mechanisms. One of them is the supersymmetry, in the usual sense, and the other protection mechanism is (in their particular case) the twin Higgs mechanism. Supersymmetry has been discussed on this blog frequently – although just a small fraction of the 391 TRF blog entries with the word "supersymmetry" say something really nontrivial about SUSY. However, as far as I know, I haven't discussed the "twin Higgs models". They are an alternative approach that may explain the lightness of the observed Higgs boson – and as these authors argue in their new paper, this approach may be particularly powerful when it is combined with SUSY. Many people who are told about the $$E_8\times E_8$$ heterotic string theory (or Hořava-Witten heterotic M-theory) models describing the real Universe like to propose that the "other $$E_8$$ group" could have the same fate as "our $$E_8$$" and it could also be broken to the Standard Model group etc. The states charged under the "other Standard Model group" would represent a shadowy dark sector (you may visualize it as the opposite side of the Hořava-Witten desk-shaped world) that interacts with us weakly (gravitationally plus by some weak interactions) and that is otherwise "analogous" (if not "identical") to the particles we know. Just to be sure, the normal assumption is that the fate of the other $$E_8$$ is different and it may remain unbroken while its gauginos ignite the supersymmetry breaking through their condensate. So they take two copies of the MSSM and assume a complete $$\ZZ_2$$ symmetry for them, at least for the Higgs potential terms. Accidentally, this $$\ZZ_2$$ is sufficient to guarantee the full $$U(4)$$ symmetry – with the usual "additive" embedding of $$U(2)\times U(2)$$ of both "Standard Models" – for all perturbative terms in the potential. Such a situation is known as an "accidental symmetry", in this case $$U(4)$$. At the end, the symmetry is broken by other phenomena and the Goldstone theorem guarantees massless or – because the symmetry isn't really exact – light scalar bosons. The observed $$125.6\GeV$$ Higgs boson from the LHC is an example of such light scalar bosons. The two worlds are not completely decoupled in their models, however. A chiral superfield $$S$$ interacts with both worlds via the $$SS$$ superpotential. The degree of fine-tuning is very small in their model even if the top squarks lie above $$3\TeV$$. The Higgsinos are recommended to be around $$1\TeV$$ which – I note – happens to agree with the estimate of the nearly pure Higgsino LSP in an unconstrained MSSM where the mass was computed as a best fit. I guess that the normal MSSM may still be embedded into the doubled one so the two papers aren't quite incompatible and one could say that there's "diverse evidence" to think that the LSP is a Higgsino and near $$1\TeV$$. Of course, I am not promising you that a model like that has to be right. It's just interesting and intriguing to know about this "spot" which is more likely than some generic points of the parameter space. I would like to mention one more paper, one by Norma Susana Mankoč Borštnik of Slovenia (that's one female name, not two or four), Spin-charge-family theory is explaining appearance of families of quarks and leptons, of Higgs and Yukawa couplings, that almost claims to have "a theory of everything" unifying the spectrum of the Standard Model including several families into a single representation. The main idea of the "spin-charge-family unification" isn't too different from the wrong claims made by Garrett Lisi and all people on the same frequency. Well, Borštnik's picture is less obviously wrong because she doesn't claim to include gravity – this is what is really impossible to get from similar naive models. At any rate, all the lepton and quark fields of all generations are claimed to arise from a single chiral 64-dimensional spinor in 13+1 dimensions. You embed $$SO(3,1)$$ to $$SO(13,1)$$ in the obvious additive way and the remaining $$SO(10)$$ dimensions are "enough" to give you some additional degeneracy. While it's not "immediately wrong", I think that much of my criticism against Garrett Lisi's and similar papers still holds. In particular, the $$SO(13,1)$$ symmetry isn't really exact or unbroken because that would require all the 13+1 dimensions to be uncompactified. So the symmetry has to be broken – morally by a compactification – and because she assumes that the representation theory for the spinors works just like in a flat 13+1-dimensional space, it looks like a toroidal compactification. But that would give us a bad, non-chiral theory. So the $$SO(13,1)$$ has to be broken explicitly, in a different way than the normal compactification, but then I don't understand the rules of the game. Why is she trusting this large symmetry to pick the spectrum if the symmetry is broken and cannot be trusted for most other questions? I would like one of these attempts to be right but as far as I can say, all of them are wrong because they're using "extra dimensions" – something that is imposed upon us by string/M-theory – but without all the careful analyses of subtleties that string/M-theory demands along with the extra dimensions at the same moment. ### Symmetrybreaking - Fermilab/SLAC US particle physicists look to space A panel met at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory to look for promising routes to the study of dark matter, dark energy and other phenomena. Early this week, about 150 particle physicists gathered at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory to explore the future of particle physics with a special focus on topics connecting particle physics, cosmology and astrophysics. ## December 05, 2013 ### Clifford V. Johnson - Asymptotia Goodbye, Nelson Mandela Rest in peace… but let your legacy and the lessons of your actions and words forever stay alive and working in our societies worldwide. -cvj Click to continue reading this post ### John Baez - Azimuth Talk at the SETI Institute SETI means ‘Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence’. I’m giving a talk at the SETI Institute on Tuesday December 17th, from noon to 1 pm. You can watch it live, watch it later on their YouTube channel, or actually go there and see it. It’s free, and you can just walk in at 189 San Bernardo Avenue in Mountain View, California, but please register if you can. #### Life’s Struggle to Survive When pondering the number of extraterrestrial civilizations, it is worth noting that even after it got started, the success of life on Earth was not a foregone conclusion. We recount some thrilling episodes from the history of our planet, some well-documented but others merely theorized: our collision with the planet Theia, the oxygen catastrophe, the snowball Earth events, the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event, the asteroid that hit Chicxulub, and more, including the global warming episode we are causing now. All of these hold lessons for what may happen on other planets. If you know interesting things about these or other ‘close calls’, please tell me! I’m still preparing my talk, and there’s room for more fun facts. I’ll make my slides available when they’re ready. The SETI Institute looks like an interesting place, and my host, Adrian Brown, is an expert on the poles of Mars. I’ve been fascinated about the water there, and I’ll definitely ask him about this paper: • Adrian J. Brown, Shane Byrne, Livio L. Tornabene and Ted Roush, Louth crater: Evolution of a layered water ice mound, Icarus 196 (2008), 433–445. Louth Crater is a fascinating place. Here’s a photo: By the way, I’ll be in Berkeley from December 14th to 21st, except for a day trip down to Mountain View for this talk. I’ll be at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute talking to Eliezer Yudkowsky, Paul Christiano and others at a Workshop on Probability, Logic and Reflection. This invitation arose from my blog post here: If you’re in Berkeley and you want to talk, drop me a line. I may be too busy, but I may not. ### Symmetrybreaking - Fermilab/SLAC 10 journals to go open-access in 2014 As part of the SCOAP3 publishing initiative, 10 journals in high-energy physics will offer unrestricted access to their peer-reviewed articles, starting January 1. At the start of the new year, about 60 percent of the scientific articles in the field of high-energy physics will become freely available online as part of the largest-scale global open-access initiative ever built. Thanks to a CERN-based publishing initiative called the Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics, or SCOAP3, articles from 10 peer-reviewed journals will be available online; authors will retain their copyrights; and new licenses will enable wide re-use of content. ### arXiv blog Physicists Discover World's First Naturally Occurring Topological Insulator The were first predicted in 2005 and first synthesized in the lab in 2008. Now physicists have discovered a naturally occurring topological insulator that can be mined from the earth’s crust. Topological insulators are one of the more exciting new materials in science. This stuff is odd because is a conductor on the surface but an insulator inside, rather like a block of ice in which melting water flows around the outside but is trapped as a solid in the middle. ### Symmetrybreaking - Fermilab/SLAC First particle-antiparticle collider now historic site The European Physical Society has declared the construction site of the Anello di Accumulazione collider in Frascati, Italy, a significant site in physics history. Measuring roughly 4 feet in diameter and claiming an operational life of only a few years, the Anello di Accumulazione—an early 1960s particle collider (pictured above)—is outwardly unassuming. But the modest machine enabled a new chapter of accelerator physics: It was the first particle-antiparticle collider and the first electron-positron storage ring. ### Tommaso Dorigo - Scientificblogging The Quote Of The Week - Higgs On Anderson's Role In The Higgs Mechanism "During the years 1962 to 1964 a debate developed about whether the Goldstone theorem could be evaded. Anderson pointed out that in a superconductor the Goldstone mode becomes a massive plasmon mode due to its electromagnetic interaction, and that this mode is just the longitudinal partner of transversely polarized electromagnetic modes, which also are massive (the Meissner effect!). Ths was the first description of what has become known as the Higgs mechanism. read more ### The Great Beyond - Nature blog More science funding for UK universities Science played only a minor role in today’s key statement on government spending from George Osborne, the United Kingdom’s chancellor of the exchequer. But he did promise more funding for science courses at universities, as the government seeks to expand the number of students in higher education. To this end, 30,000 extra university places will be created next year, and the current cap on numbers will be abolished entirely the year after that. Osborne also promised that the United Kingdom would “push the boundaries of scientific endeavour, including in controversial areas”, and confirmed yesterday’s announcement that £270 million (US441 million) will be invested in quantum technology. A road map for how the long-term capital spending announced earlier this year will be spent is to be produced for next year’s autumn statement.

Green issues also featured in today’s speech. The government has been criticized recently for apparently rowing back on its promise to be the ‘greenest ever’. Osborne confirmed that some taxes on energy — including some so-called green levies — will be removed, but he said this would be done in a low-carbon way. A planned increase in tax on petrol will also be cancelled.

### The Great Beyond - Nature blog

Researchers push for more funding as dementia cases rise

The number of people living with dementia around the world is now estimated at 44 million, or up 22% from three years ago, according to a report released today by Alzheimer’s Disease International (ADI), a federation of Alzheimer’s associations around the world.

The increase on the ADI’s previous finding is due at least in part to improved reporting of dementia prevalence in China and sub-Saharan Africa. And as people live longer, cases of dementia — a catch-all term describing the loss of memory, mental agility and understanding owing to neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s — will rise to 76 million by 2030 and to 136 million by 2050, the ADI report says. “The current burden and future impact of the dementia epidemic has been underestimated,” it concludes.

The report ratchets up the pressure on funders to invest more into tackling dementia ahead of an 11 December summit in London, at which the World Health Organization and ministers from the G8 (Group of Eight) countries will discuss a global action plan on the condition.

“This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to turn the tide on dementia,” Doug Brown, director of research and development at the Alzheimer’s Society, a charity based in London, told reporters at a briefing yesterday. “We need as much investment in dementia research as we have in cancer,” he said.

Indeed, despite well-publicized political commitments — the United Kingdom’s prime minister David Cameron launched a ‘dementia challenge’ in March 2012, and the US government set out plans for extra Alzheimer’s funding in May 2012 — levels of funding remain low.

In the United Kingdom, for example, dementia costs the economy £23 billion a year (though mostly not in front-line medical expenses), the Alzheimer’s Society estimates — which is twice the burden of cancer. But public research funding only amounts to some £60 million a year, and that is barely one-eighth of what is spent on cancer research. The problem is similar around the world, Brown says.

Nick Fox, a neurologist who heads the Dementia Research Centre at University College London, says, more conservatively, that he hopes the G8 will double dementia funding in the next five years.

Drugs designed to fight Alzheimer’s disease have proved disappointing in clinical trials so far. But, says Fox, “some of the trials have been like trying chemotherapy for cancer when the patient is already in a care hospice,” given that Alzheimer’s starts to attack the brain up to a decade before symptoms such as memory loss appear.

In a new approach, at least four clinical trials are now planning to treat people who have not yet developed Alzheimer’s symptoms. One is a five-year trial of an antibody, crenezumab, which binds to fragments of neuron-damaging amyloid-β. The drug will be tested in people who carry a rare genetic mutation that makes them certain to get the disease. Another, the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer’s Network study, will enrol patients with a possible familial risk for Alzheimer’s; a third, by companies Takeda (based in Osaka, Japan) and Zinfandel Pharmaceuticals (based on Durham, North Carolina), hopes to test an experimental drug in people whose genetic makeup suggests elevated risk of Alzheimer’s; and a fourth, known as the A4 study, will treat people who show biomarker evidence of amyloid plaques in positron-emission tomography.

The ADI report adds that better care and timely diagnoses are important, too. And dementia is not just a disease of the well-off: though cases are concentrated in the richest and most demographically aged countries, 63% of people with dementia live in low- and middle-income countries where there is limited access to social services and support.

## December 04, 2013

### Lubos Motl - string vacua and pheno

Making exceptional symmetries of SUGRA manifest
I found at least two hep-th papers interesting today. Nathan Berkovits brings us some field redefinition that maps his pure spinor formalism to the RNS formalism, using a new method of "dynamical twisting". My understanding is that it's not sufficient to understand why the calculated amplitudes agree. But I will only discuss
Exceptional Field Theory I: $$E_{6(6)}$$ covariant Form of M-Theory and Type IIB by Olaf Hohm and Henning Samtleben.
The names may sound German to you but it's technically a French-American collaboration. ;-) I don't know the authors but I know all 4 people thanked in the acknowledgements, Liu, Nicolai, Taylor, and Zwiebach.

Supergravity (or M-theory) compactified on tori produces lower-dimensional theories with non-compact exceptional continuous (or discrete) symmetries (called the U-duality group in the M-theory case). Exceptional groups are sexy and mysterious, too.

It has always been plausible that a decent understanding of the origin of these exceptional symmetries could provide us with a new, spectacularly clear view into string theory's deepest inner workings. It could be just a straightforward technical result without far-reaching implications, too. We can't know for sure.

Formulations that make duality symmetries of string/M-theory manifest became popular in recent years.

In the case of T-duality, the part of the full U-duality group that is visible at every order of the weak coupling expansion of string theory, the paradigm carries the name "Double Field Theory" or "DFT". Both the circular compact coordinates and their T-dual partners are included as fields. It would be wrong to simply double-count so some constraint has to be added.

The new paper extends these techniques to M-theory, beyond the perturbative stringy expansions, where the exceptional symmetries occur. The ordinary well-known exceptional symmetries appear on the compactification of M-theory on $$T^k$$ for $$k=6,7,8$$ where the noncompact symmetries are $$E_{k(k)}(\RR)$$ and U-duality groups are $$E_{k(k)}(\ZZ)$$. In this paper, they discuss the $$k=6$$ case.

Note that the supergravity has six compact periodic dimensions but the smallest nontrivial representation of the $$E_6$$-like group is $$27$$-dimensional. So to make this group manifest, we clearly need to add $$27$$ compact dimensions (aside from the $$4+1$$ noncompact ones) and not just $$6$$ of them.

The would-be SUGRA theory would have too many degrees of freedom. Most of them are removed again by the following clever $$E_6$$-covariant constraint involving a cubic symmetric tensor invariant of the group $$d^{MNP}$$:$d^{MNK} \partial_N\partial_K A = 0, \quad d^{MNK} \partial_N A \partial_K B = 0$ which should hold for all fields $$A$$ or $$A,B$$ in our $$5+27$$-dimensional spacetime. The bosonic SUGRA fields that live in this extended spacetime are the ordinary fünfbein $$e_\mu^a$$ that remembers the metric in the five noncompact dimensions; $${\mathcal M}_{MN}$$ which are the usual scalars in this supergravity living in the $$E_{6(6)}/USp(8)$$ coset; $$A_\mu^M$$ gauge fields which sort of remember the mixed compact-noncompact components of the metric in the Kaluza-Klein way; and $$B_{\mu\nu,M}$$ which are the newest fields of the "EFT", or "exceptional field theory", namely some new tensor gauge fields.

The constraint generalizes (and was constructed by analogy from) the "strong constraint" in DFT which is a stronger version of $$L_0=\tilde L_0$$ needed when the T-dual coordinates are added.

The action for these bosonic fields in the $$32$$-dimensional spacetime is kind of natural. I said that $$B$$ were tensor gauge fields so there is a new gauge symmetry for them which doesn't use the ordinary Lie brackets like Lie algebras do. Instead, it uses the E-brackets (equation 2.15). The commutator of gauge transformations dependent on parameter fields $$\Lambda_{1},\Lambda_{2}$$ is proportional to $$\Lambda\partial \Lambda$$ structures, perhaps with two copies of the invariant $$E_6$$ tensor $$d^{MNP}$$. This is pretty cool and the added single derivative on the right-hand side (relatively to the Yang-Mills gauge transformations' commutator which has no derivatives) makes the commutator somewhat supersymmetry-like (but all these objects are bosonic; nevertheless, this bosonic gauge symmetry seems as powerful as supersymmetry in determining all the couplings in the action).

You should read the paper itself but I just end up this blog post by saying that they explicitly find the two solutions of the constraints above. One of them preserves $$GL(6)$$ and interprets the vacuum instantly as 11D SUGRA (M-theory...) on a 6-torus; the other one preserves $$GL(5)\times SL(2)$$ and interprets the vacuum as type IIB SUGRA (IIB string) on a five-torus.

If that works and if fermions with SUSY may be added (it surely looks like a worm of can to consider $$256$$-dimensional chiral spinors that are minimal in $$32$$ dimensions, it looks like too much but maybe it is exactly OK for SUGRA), this is a new formulation of the maximally supersymmetric supergravity theories that makes the noncompact symmetry group manifest! That's cool but some further progress would probably be needed to define the whole UV-complete string/M-theory (in its maximally supersymmetric vacua) with the manifest U-duality groups. For example, we may ask: Is there a variation of this formalism that defines the so far unknown BFSS-like matrix model for M-theory on $$T^6$$? Or higher?

The explanations of the origin of exceptional symmetries in string/M-theory have been among five top research topics of mine in the recent decade or so. I've actually reached conditions similar to the constraints above but from a very different perspective – from attempts to generalize the Dirac quantization rule and T-duality lattices to the exceptional nonperturbative case. The field-theory limit of my construction is probably described in this very paper and it hasn't been clear to me. I will have to think about it more.

The authors have announced the exceptional field theory in an August 2013 [PRL] paper that I mostly missed and they are preparing the second part of the today's preprint, too.

### Tommaso Dorigo - Scientificblogging

I Am Writing A Book
Inspired by my friend Peter Woit's openness in discussing his work in progress (a thick textbook on the foundations of quantum mechanics), I feel compelled to come out here about my own project.