Latest from the LHC

This weekend successful tests of injection of a beam from the SPS into the LHC were performed. The beam only traveled through a few of the sectors before being dumped, since all sectors of the machine are not yet ready for beam commissioning.

A week or so ago the decision was made to start beam commissioning with the magnets only fully commissioned to 2kA. This means that the machine will be limited to operation at 1.1 TeV/beam this year. The current schedule has commissioning to 2kA finishing November 16, attempts to circulate 450 GeV beams starting November 23. On December 7, the beam energy would start to ramp up to 1.1 TeV. 1.1 TeV/beam collisions would start Dec. 14, with shutdown for Christmas/New Year’s starting Dec. 16. This means that 2009 will not see physics collisions, but will perhaps see collisions at energies marginally higher than that of the Tevatron.

By the end of the year, 2 sectors will be commissioned to 6kA, the magnet current needed to run the machine for physics at 3.5 TeV/beam. The rest of the sectors will be commissioned to 6kA and the energy ramped up to 3.5 TeV/beam starting after the shutdown ends in January.

Update: Some more from the latest schedule. January 7 will be the start of recommissioning after the shutdown, and current plan is to have the machine ready for physics collisions at 3.5 TeV/beam by February 8.

Update: The date to begin beam commissioning again by circulating a beam in the LHC is now set for Friday November 20.

Posted in Experimental HEP News | 5 Comments

Master of the Universe

A couple days ago I got an odd phone call, from a reporter at the Guardian, asking me to comment on the appointment of Michael Green as Lucasian Professor at Cambridge. I told the reporter that I wasn’t a really appropriate person to be asking; for one thing I’ve never met him personally. I did say that from what I knew of his scientific career, he was a quite good choice. He and John Schwarz made great progress in understanding string theory, working on it at a time that this was a very unpopular thing to do. In my view much of the problem with particle theory the past 25 years has to do with the lack of sufficient talented people willing and able to work on the kind of unpopular research that Green and Schwarz took up.

Several people have now pointed out to me the new story in the Guardian, Michael Green: Master of the Universe, which makes clear the reason for that phone call (although none of my comments made it into the story). There’s the usual hype about string theory: “the subject’s thriving”, and the latest news is that it may lead to better understanding of high temperature superconductors and thus help solve the world’s energy problems. In a sidebar, the claim is made that:

The Large Hadron Collider, at Cern, could provide evidence for the theory by analysing the collisions of fundamental particles at high energies.

although Green admits:

…that really is wildly optimistic, and I suspect that’s not going to happen.

Green deals with criticism of string theory with a laugh and ad hominem attacks on Lee Smolin and me as “two particular people who don’t have any particular reason to be knowledgeable about the subject.” As for the idea that it might be a good idea for people to look for alternatives to string theory (much the way he and Schwarz worked in the early 80s), his comment is “But there is nothing else.”

Green seems to be not completely sure I have a Ph.D. For those interested in the question of my qualifications, there’s an old blog entry here. It should perhaps be updated to note that, while I’m still responsible for the Math department computer system, I no longer have the odd title of “Director of Instruction”, but was moved to a non-tenured faculty position as “Lecturer”. Recently I was promoted to the position of “Senior Lecturer”, still non-tenured, but with a long-term contract.

I wish Green the best with his promotion.

Posted in Uncategorized | 28 Comments

Physicists Calculate Alternative Universes

According to a story in the Stanford Daily, the recent arXiv preprint mentioned here and discussed many other places on the web has given us two new scientific celebrities:

Two of Stanford’s physicists, Professor Andrei Linde and postdoctoral researcher Vitaly Vanchurin, have garnered recent celebrity-status in the scientific community for their recent discovery of the maximum number of alternate universes.

Instead of consulting experts in this field and getting quotes about how significant this pseudo-science is, the writer asks Stanford students, who do a much better job than the experts:

“I personally find the concept intriguing, but I think we should be wary of scientists who can use it as a way to write things off and stop looking for deeper answers to physical phenomena,” Lauren Janas ’12 said…

Some Stanford students are not entirely convinced of Vanchurin and Linde‘s complicated methods.

“I’m quite skeptical,” Frank Liu ’13 said. “I think it’s hard to tell how many universes there exactly are.”

The story ends with the mystifying news that the authors hope “that in the future, they can work with modular observations to confirm their findings.”

For more media coverage of the multiverse, see here.

Update: Oops, last link was broken, now fixed.

Posted in Multiverse Mania | 26 Comments

Higgs, Dark Matter and Supersymmetry: what the LHC will tell us

The Council for the Advancement of Science Writing is holding a New Horizons in Science conference right now in Austin. This morning Steven Weinberg gave a talk, now available online, with the title Higgs, dark matter and supersymmetry, what the Large Hadron Collider will tell us. He described the Higgs as something definitely expected, supersymmetry as a much more speculative possibility, but had nothing to say about string theory during the talk. In the question session, Tom Siegfried of Science News asked him about why he hadn’t mentioned string theory, and what its prospects now were, 25 years after first being heavily promoted to the press. Weinberg answered:

It’s developed mathematically, but not to the point where there is any one theory, or to the point that even if we had one theory we would know how to do calculations to predict things like the mass of the electron, or the masses of the quarks. So, I would say, although there has been theoretical progress it’s been, I find it disappointing. One of the hopes would be that the LHC would provide a clue to something we’re missing in superstring theory and I think there supersymmetry is the most likely place to look.

One of the troubles with superstring theory is that although in a sense the theorists think there is only one theory, there are an infinite number of approximate solutions of it and we don’t know which one corresponds to our world. But at least in a large variety of the solutions of superstring theory there is supersymmetry visible at low energies, and if we see supersymmetry at low energies, superstring theorists may be able to derive from it some kind of clue as to how to solve these theories. But I haven’t talked about it in this lecture because I don’t see how that would work, it would be.. I mean I couldn’t say that that was likely with any degree of sincerity, and certainly the LHC and any other accelerator that we can imagine being built will not get up to energies which are high enough so that we can directly see the structures that are described by superstring theory, the strings or the D-branes or whatever it is. Those will not be accessible at the LHC, so any clue we get will be very indirect.

I myself, well I was working on superstring theory in the 80s and gave it up because I… I moved into cosmology, which in the last couple of decades has had the excitement that elementary particle physics had in the 60s and 70s, a wonderful coming together of theory and observation. Cosmology now reminds me of the excitement that I felt when I was younger and doing particle physics.. and it’s a pity that superstring hasn’t developed better. I still think it’s the best hope we have, I don’t know of anything else. My own work very recently has been trying to develop an alternative to superstring theory as a way of making sense out of quantum gravity at very high energies. But even though I’m working on this I still find superstring theory more attractive, but not attractive enough…

Siegfried gives an account of the talk here. It includes a new remarkably convoluted and misleading way of referring to the fact that string theory predicts nothing at all about observable physics:

But despite a quarter century of intense effort, superstring theory has not produced a cohesive and clear guide to testing its fit with all the observable features of physical existence.

Posted in Uncategorized | 32 Comments

Short Items

  • There’s a wonderful new research mathematics site: Math Overflow. For some discussion of it, see here and here.
  • For yet another wonderful new site about research mathematics, there’s the French Images des Mathématiques.
  • Why is there nothing in theoretical physics anywhere near as good as the above two sites?
  • Via Flip Tanedo, an NPR story about Berkeley’s parking spaces for Nobelists. He neglects to mention that, starting with Vaughan Jones in 1990, Berkeley started providing equivalent parking spaces for Fields medalists.
  • It looks like multiverse mania is not just an American phenomenon, since there’s a new popular book on the multiverse out in Germany Die verrückte Welt der Paralleluniversen, by Tobias Hürter and Max Rauner. For a synopsis in English, see here. The authors have a blog, Multiversum.
  • The Perimeter Institute has just announced more details of their expansion plans. The new 55,000 square foot expansion of their building will be named the Stephen Hawking Centre at Perimeter Institute. They have doubled the number of Distinguished Research Chairs to 20, with ten new appointments announced here. Director Neil Turok is giving a talk about their plans today, video should be on-line soon.
  • This week at Perimeter they’re having a Quantum to Cosmos Festival. It started off Thursday night with a discussion by 9 physicists organized around “what keeps them up at night”. String theorist David Tong explained that he used to be kept up at night worrying about whether string theory unification could ever be tested, scientifically justifying the subject. Nowadays though, he says he sleeps fine since he no longer needs to worry about this: even if string theory unification is untestable, string theory research can be justified because it provides approximate calculational methods that might be useful in nuclear or condensed matter physics.
  • Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments

    Nielsen-Ninomiya and the arXiv

    Because of the New York Times article discussed here, four recent papers by Nielsen and Ninomiya have been getting a lot of attention in the blogosphere. Pretty much all of it has been unremittingly hostile, when not convinced that these papers must be some sort of joke (except for this from Sean Carroll). I just noticed that these papers have gotten some attention from administrators of the arXiv, who have decided to reclassify three of them, presumably since the appearance of the NYT article.

    The first in the series, arXiv:0707.1919 was originally posted in hep-ph, with a cross-listing to hep-th (see the Google cache of Oct. 5), but has now been re-classified as gen-ph (cross-listed as hep-ph and hep-th). Similarly, arXiv:0711.3080 has been reclassified from hep-ph to gen-ph, cross-listed to hep-ph (see Google cache of Sept. 12). I’m not sure what arXiv:0802.2991 was originally classified as, but the Sept. 3 Google cache has it as the same as now, gen-ph, cross-listed to hep-th. Finally, the most recent one, arXiv:0910.0359, was originally classified as hep-ph (Google cache of Oct. 7), now it has been re-classified to gen-ph, cross-listed to hep-ph.

    While the arXiv administrators seem to be indicating that they share the common opinion that these are crackpot papers, one thing there does remain constant: trackbacks appear there to various press stories and blog postings about these papers, but trackbacks to this blog seem to be censored.

    Update: Trackbacks to blog postings here on this Nielsen-Ninomiya subject have now appeared. The ways of the arXiv remain mysterious to me. About all I can tell is that trackbacks to some sources appear more or less immediately, presumably automatically (for instance the trackbacks to the original NYT article). For other sources, e.g. this one, they only appear in batches, often several days later, presumably after someone has gotten around to considering the matter…

    Posted in Multiverse Mania | 20 Comments

    Embarrassing Crackpottery

    A while back I noticed that the arXiv had allowed the posting of the preprint Card game restriction in LHC can only be successful!, yet another in a sequence of crackpot articles about the LHC from Holger-Bech Nielsen and Masao Ninomiya. That these authors have managed to get the previous articles in the series published in the International Journal of Modern Physics A presumably has something to do with the fact that Ninomiya is an editor of the journal. I didn’t post anything about this, on the grounds that embarrassing crackpottery from well-known physicists that no one except them takes seriously is best ignored.

    Unfortunately, this particular piece of nonsense has been picked up by the New York Times, which tomorrow is running a story about it under the title The Collider, the Particle and a Theory About Fate. The writer, Dennis Overbye, presumably contacted some physicists to find out what they thought of this. If any of them told him this was just nuts and an embarrassment, that didn’t make it into the story, instead there’s:

    …craziness has a fine history in a physics that talks routinely about cats being dead and alive at the same time and about anti-gravity puffing out the universe.

    As Niels Bohr, Dr. Nielsen’s late countryman and one of the founders of quantum theory, once told a colleague: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.”

    Dr. Nielsen is well-qualified in this tradition. He is known in physics as one of the founders of string theory and a deep and original thinker, “one of those extremely smart people that is willing to chase crazy ideas pretty far,” in the words of Sean Carroll, a Caltech physicist and author of a coming book about time, “From Eternity to Here.”

    Perhaps it would be a good idea if physicists would remind journalists that often things that seem to be crazy really are crazy.

    Update: See more here from Tommaso Dorigo. I should have mentioned that his posting from a couple years back Respectable physicists gone crackpotty was linked to in the article by Overbye, who had an accurate take on the subject from at least one source.

    Update: Somehow I knew that Slashdot could not possibly resist this nonsense.

    Update: Sean Carroll has a long defense of the Nielsen-Ninomiya papers as not crackpot at all, but crazy in a positive way:

    There’s no real reason to believe in an imaginary component to the action with dramatic apparently-nonlocal effects, and even if there were, the specific choice of action contemplated by NN seems rather contrived. But I’m happy to argue that it’s the good kind of crazy. The authors start with a speculative but well-defined idea, and carry it through to its logical conclusions.

    As for the argument that prominently-placed New York Times stories promoting crazy ideas about physics might be problematic, Sean is having none of it. He argues that the public is able to differentiate between speculative ideas and solidly tested science, so it’s not a problem that:

    My own anecdotal observations are pretty unambiguous — the public loves far-out speculations like this, and happily eats them up.

    Posted in Multiverse Mania | 51 Comments

    In Search of the Multiverse

    The ongoing pseudo-scientific multiverse mania continues, with the recent publication in the UK of a new book by John Gribbin promoting this to the public: In Search of the Multiverse.

    Gribbin expounds at length the usual string theory anthropic landscape/multiverse ideology, carefully avoiding introducing any mention of the fact that there might be quite a few scientists skeptical about it. On the crucial question of testability he invokes Raphael Bousso, who:

    hopes, and expects, that there will be ways to extract such broad rules of the behaviour of matter at what are low energies compared to the Big Bang, but high by the standards of everyday life, from string theory.

    There’s no indication given about what these broad rules implied by string theory might be, just a hint that whatever they are, we’re not going to be able to test them anytime soon:

    even the the technology of the Large Hadron Collider may not be up to the task of testing such predictions.

    Like many multiverse fans, Gribbin wants to mix together the many worlds interpretation of QM and the string theory anthropic multiverse in cosmology, attributing this insight to Susskind, and ending the next to last chapter of his book with:

    This pulls together everything discussed in this book so far in such a pleasing way that it is tempting to end it here. The Cosmic Landscape of string theory is just the many worlds theory of David Deutsch writ large, and with inflation included within itself.

    Unfortunately he doesn’t end the book there, but adds a final chapter promoting his own interpretation of the significance of the multiverse. His idea is that we are the product of a baby universe created by some race of superior beings:

    The intelligence required to do the job may be superior to ours, but it is a finite intelligence reasonably similar to our own, not an infinite and incomprehensible God. The most likely reason for such an intelligence to make universes is the same as the reason why people do things like climbing mountains or studying the nature of subatomic particles using accelerators like the LHC – because they can. A civilization that has the technology to make baby universes might find the temptation irresistible, while at the higher levels of universe design, if the superior intelligences are anything at all like us there would be an overwhelming temptation to improve upon the design of their own universes.

    This provides the best resolution yet to the puzzle Albert Einstein used to raise, that ‘the most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible.’ The Universe is comprehensible to the human mind because it was designed, at least to some extent, by intelligent beings with minds similar to our own. Fred Hoyle put it slightly differently. ‘The Universe,’ he used to say, ‘is a put-up job.’ I believe that he was right. But in order for that ‘put-up job’ to be understood, we need all the elements of this book.

    Personally, I think there’s an air-tight argument against this: any race of superior beings that produced a universe in which science descended into this level of nonsense would immediately wipe out their creation and start over. Since we’re still here, there can’t be such a race operating out there.

    Gribbin also has a Sci-Fi novel entitled Timeswitch coming out soon.

    For two reviews of the book, see here and here.

    In other multiverse news, FQXI has a story here promoting Andrei Linde, Renata Kallosh and their work on the string theory multiverse. Linde and a collaborator have a new paper How many universes are in the multiverse? on hep-th (by the way, why are these things not in qr-qc, since they’re “quantum cosmology” if anything is?). They come up with a number of 10 to the 10 to the 375 for the number of universes, and seem to argue that one needs to analyze all these to come up with predictions:

    But when we study quantum cosmology, evaluate the total number of universes and eventually apply these results to anthropic considerations, one may need to take [the number of degrees of freedom of the observer] into account. Potentially, it may become very important that when we analyze the probability of existence of a universe of a given type, we should be talking about a consistent pair: the universe and an observer who makes the rest of the universe “alive” and the wave function of the rest of universe time-dependent.

    Posted in Multiverse Mania | 24 Comments

    Witten on Analytic Continuation of Chern-Simons Theory

    I was down in Princeton last Thursday, and attended a wonderful talk by Witten, which I’ll try and explain a little bit about here. Presumably within a rather short time he’ll have a paper out on the arXiv giving full details.

    The talk concerned Chern-Simons theory, the remarkable 3d QFT that was largely responsible for Witten’s Fields medal. Given an SU(2) connection A on a bundle over a 3-manifold M, one can define its Chern-Simons number CS(A). This number is invariant under the identity component of the group of gauge transformations $\mathcal G$, and jumps by 2π times an integer under topologically non-trivial gauge transformations. The QFT is given by taking CS(A) as the action. The path integral

    $$Z(M,k)=\int_{\mathcal A/\mathcal G} dA e^{ikCS(A)}$$

    is well-defined for k integral and gives an interesting topological invariant of the 3-manifold M. One can also take a knot K in M, choose an irreducible representation R of SU(2) of spin n/2, and then define a knot invariant by

    $$Z(M,K,k,n)=\int_{\mathcal A/\mathcal G} dA e^{ikCS(A)}hol_R(K)$$

    where $hol_R(K)$ is the trace of the holonomy in the representation R, around the knot K (this is the Wilson loop).

    To simplify matters, consider the special case $Z(K,k,n)=Z(S^3,K,k,n)$, which can be used to study knots in $\mathbf R^3$.

    These knot invariants can be evaluated for large k by stationary phase approximation (perturbation theory), and for arbitrary k by reformulating the QFT in a Hamiltonian formalism, and using loop group representation theory and the Verlinde (fusion) algebra.

    One thing that has always bothered me about this story is that it has never been clear to me whether such a path integral makes sense at all non-perturbatively. At one point I spent a lot of time thinking about how you would do such a calculation in lattice gauge theory. There, one can imagine various (computationally impractical) ways of defining the action, but integrating a phase over an infinite dimensional space always looked problematic: without some other sort of structure, it was hard to see how one could get a well-defined answer in the limit of zero-lattice spacing. In simpler models with similar structure (e.g. loops on a symplectic manifold), similar problems appear, and are resolved by introducing additional terms in the action.

    What Witten proposed in his talk was a method for consistently defining such path integrals by analytic continuation. The idea is to complexify, working with SL(2,C) connections and a holomorphic Chern-Simons functional, then exploit the freedom to choose a different contour to integrate over than the contour of SU(2) connections. By choosing a contour that is not invariant under topologically non-trivial gauge transformations, and only modding out by the topologically trivial ones, Witten also managed to define the theory for non-integral k, making contact with a lot of mathematical work on these knot invariants, which treats them a Laurent polynomials in the square root of

    $$q=e^{2\pi i/(k+2)}$$

    The main new idea that Witten was using was that the contributions of different critical points p (including complex ones), could be calculated by choosing appropriate contours $\mathcal C_p$ using Morse theory for the Chern-Simons functional. This sort of Morse theory involving holomorphic Morse functions gets used in mathematics in Picard-Lefshetz theory. The contour is given by the downward flow from the critical point, and the flow equation turns out to be a variant of the self-duality equation that Witten had previously encountered in his work with Kapustin on geometric Langlands. One tricky aspect of all this is that the contours one needs to integrate over are sums of the $\mathcal C_p$ with integral coefficients and these coefficients jump at “Stokes curves” as one varies the parameter in one’s integral (in this case, x=k/n, k and n are large). In his talk, Witten showed the answer that he gets for the case of the figure-eight knot.

    Mathematicians and mathematical physicists have done quite a bit of work on SL(2,C) Chern-Simons, and studying the properties of knot-invariants as analytic functions. I don’t know whether Witten’s new technique solves any of the mathematical problems that have come up there. He mentioned the relation to 3d gravity, where the relationship between Chern-Simons theory and gravity in the Lorentzian and Euclidean signature cases evidently still remains somewhat mysterious. Perhaps his analytic continuation method may provide some new insight there. It also may apply to a much wider range of QFTs where there are imaginary terms in the action, making the path integral problematic. I’d be very curious to understand how this works out in some simpler models, such as the loop space ones. In any case, it appears to be a quite beautiful new idea about how to define certain QFTs via the path integral.

    Update: Witten’s slides for the talk are available here, video here. For slides from other talks at the workshop the talk was part of, see here.

    Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

    Short News Items

    Mathematician Jim Simons is retiring from the job of running the hedge fund Renaissance Technologies. Construction of the building for the Simons Center for Geometry and Physics is proceeding, with opening scheduled for next fall.

    An Algerian physicist associated with the LHCb experiment at CERN has been arrested on charges of having associations with al-Qaeda. The media freak out and CERN issues a statement.

    I. M. Gelfand died on Monday at the age of 96. For more about him, see here, here and here.

    The fourth and latest installment of Oswaldo Zapata’s essay on the history of superstring theory is here.

    In Geometric Langlands news, Dennis Gaitsgory is running a seminar at Harvard this fall, with notes and other materials on-line here.

    Emanuel Kowalski points out that, morally, Princeton’s Peter Sarnak has a blog.

    Update: One more.

    Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments