“The current upper bound is 8.7 × 10^(−29) e·cm with 90% confidence”

doesn’t this upper bound already eliminate SUSY?

Supersymmetric models predict that |de| > 10−26 e·cm (ref below)

SUSY predicted effect on Electron electric dipole moment |de| > 10−26 e·cm is >> > 8.7 × 10^(−29) e·cm by 3 to 4 orders of magnitude

improving the upper bound to 10e-30 or -31 e·cm would only increase the % confidence.

not only will LHC2 run not see SUSY but no upgrade at any scale will, either.

ref: Arnowitt, R.; Dutta, B.; Santoso, Y. (2001). “Supersymmetric phases, the electron electric dipole moment and the muon magnetic moment”. Physical Review D 64 (11): 113010. arXiv:hep-ph/0106089

]]>The record shows that the people at NIST were misled about this (see the report of their investigation). The assurances I think the AMS now needs from the NSA are about whether they’ve been used to mislead the math community. To all appearances, this is what has happened, so the NSA owes both the AMS and the math community an explanation. ]]>

Glad to provide a venue for you to respond! ]]>

even on Minkowski spacetime/Euclidean space, it is not a priori clear how to apply Osterwalder-Schrader or any other result in Haag-Kastler-style AQFT to those factorization algebras. Because, while the conceptual idea is similar in both cases — to encode a QFT by its system of assignments of collection of observables to regions of spacetime (Heisenberg picture!, dual to the Schrödinger picture of say the cobordism hypothesis) — the technical implementation is quite a bit different. In those factorization algebras the “collection” of observables assigned to a spacetime region is not only not C*, but is not even an algebra at all, it is just a chain complex (a quantum deformed BV-complex ) without a product operation. The whole system of these chain complexes as the space region varies does inherit an operadic homotopy-algebra structure sort of globally by way of inclusion induced by spacetime regions into each other, but there is a priori no “net of algebras”, not even in Fredenhagen’s perturbative relaxation of the Haag-Kastler axioms.

There might be a good translation between these two formalizations of Heisenberg-picture stype QFT, and maybe once it’s there it would allow to transport results such as Osterwalder-Schrader from Haag-Kastler-style axiomatics to factorization algebras. But for the moment this is wide open, as far as I am aware.

]]>I just read the Michael Duff review. Since his complaints make no sense at all and get things entirely the wrong way around, this is probably a good place to vent:

(1) He complains that I don’t explain how M-theory came to be. Yet I very explicitly noted in the preface that I was dealing with the earliest phases of string theory, and offer only a glimpse of M-theory, with considerably less detail involved.

(2) He says I “echo the Wikipedia version of the History of String Theory, according to which research on branes began only in 1995″. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is section after section, and footnote after footnote where I point out that most of the D-brane apparatus was discovered much earlier, going back to the late 1980s – including Duff’s work. I’m particularly annoyed at this one, since it was one of the key myths I wanted to correct. (Ditto his claim that I buy into the talk of “superstring revolutions” – another myth I explicitly argued against in the book)

(3) He says I only mention “membranes” in a “derisory” way – I’ve no idea where he gets this from. There is nothing in the least derisory about anything I say about them!

(4) Worst of all, he complains that I “belittle the role of supergravity” by referring to a “decade of darkness” in the 70s and 80s. But this is an ironic title! The whole point is to show that the ‘dark days of string theory’ is also a myth, and supergravity is identified as the central player in this story. Yet apparently I “downgrade supergravity” with “zeal”. That is a stunning statement given the pains I went to to tell exactly the opposite story.

Incidentally, my final paragraph contains the remark: “The lesson I think emerges from this is that, while the mythological presentations of ‘revolutions’ and ‘dark years’ and so on, make for a good story, a more accurate depiction reveals a somewhat less turbulent life story, though no less interesting for it.”

So I’m truly flummoxed by this review of Duff’s…

Best,

Dean

I am not sure why it matters that the NSA spell this out for you. If you are concerned that the NSA is spying on your random numbers, then I suggest using your own P and Q or another generator, regardless of what the NSA says. You seem to think that the AMS needs to get some assurances from the NSA for you, but I do not see how any such assurances would do you any good.

]]>I think it wasn’t a mistake, but perfectly reasonable for the AMS to try and get a response from the NSA to the accusations about the backdoor. It’s surprising they did get a response (and no, given NSA security, I don’t think this came about because some guy just felt like talking about it, this was a policy decision, probably made at a very high level).

I seem to be less cynical than most people in that I’m surprised that someone at the NSA, given the chance to just say “no comment”, would instead decide to write an intentionally misleading public statement. My suspicion is that that’s not the way Wertheimer sees it, but that he’s so used to the point of view that outsiders have no right to know anything that he doesn’t realize what he is doing. It really was the job of the AMS to point it out to him and ask for either a real answer to the question or a clear statement that he wasn’t allowed to provide one.

]]>@ Peter: I don’t think I am ignoring it. This was my point about the clash of cultures. Retired or not from NSA at the time of writing the piece, Wertheimer is a mathematician and, if you read some of his bio, pretty far from the stereotypical apparatchik. Maybe he just feels like discussing the issue with his peers. But, even if it was an intentional attempt to mislead the public, per your suggestion, so what? It seems to me that the issue was involving the NSA to begin with. I suppose I am not debating a fact but a matter of opinion. It doesn’t bother me that they aren’t coming clean or that they may be deliberately misleading the public. I expect that given their jobs, right or wrong. I do agree with you that the AMS has put itself in a funny spot by being a medium for the discussion.

]]>Like Wertheimer, you’re ignoring the main point here. It’s one thing for the NSA to act secretly and refuse to discuss it, that’s what they do. It’s quite another to instead go public, and do this by putting out misleading information via the the AMS.

I do think the AMS was naive here, with their conception that they are just hosting an exchange of people’s viewpoints, and thus trying to get the view of someone on the NSA side was important. The problem is that the Wertheimer article is instead essentially an official response from the US government about a matter of fact, the only time it has been willing to address this matter of fact. Presented with such a document, the AMS should have realized it was in danger of being used, and insisted that the Wertheimer article address clearly the question of the backdoor instead of misleading about it.

]]>US government communications. By introducing a backdoor (and assuming noone else would figure it out) they have weakened their own communications. ]]>