Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Update on the ESQG 2010

As previously mentioned, together with Greg Landsberg and Lee Smolin, I am presently organizing a workshop on "Experimental Search for Quantum Gravity" that will take place here at Nordita in Stockholm, July 12-16. We now have a poster that is about to be printed:



Layout and design: yours truly. We also meanwhile have a few abstracts and a new one coming in every couple of days, so check out the website for more details.

43 comments:

Uncle Al said...

No axiomatic system is stronger than its postulates. Empirical falsification (pdf) exposes defective theory. Isotropic vacuum can fail in the massed sector.

1) Do left and right shoes violate the Equivalence Principle? Parity Eötvös experiment.

2) Do left and right shoes melt with the same enthalpy? Parity calorimetry experiment.

3) Given: chemically identical opposite geometric parity mass distributions. Do such solid single crystal balls Meissner-levitated in hard vacuum spontaneously rotate in opposite directions?

4) Does a racemic mixture of opposite parity molecules in vacuum show divergent rotational states (e.g., FT microwave)? If paired molecular rotors are connected by a rigid shaft, is the meso-combination inert?

If the vacuum is demonstrably anisotropic in the massed sector, quantized gravitations as written cannot succeed. Somebody should look.

Steven Colyer said...

Very nice Bee, best of luck.

How low is the "lowered" Planck scale, and what was it formerly?

Bee said...

Steven: The Planck Scale, the energy rspt length scale where effects of quantum gravity are expected to become important, is obtained through an extrapolation of gravity over 16 orders of magnitude. If there are drastic changes to the gravitational interaction anywhere within these 16 orders, then the quantum gravity scale could be at lower energies. Scenarios with large extra dimensions do exactly this. They tell us gravity might only appear weak on large distances but fundamentally is as strong as the other interactions. The favoured value of the Planck mass in these scenarios is typically a few TeV to get rid of the Hierarchy problem, though it is actually a free parameter (within experimental constraints). Best,

B.

Steven Colyer said...

Ah, thank you Bee. That cleared up much in my brain-pan. I was worried that it had to do with some kind of adjustment from the Fermi satellite results of last summer. No worries, then. :-)

Michael said...

Sounds like a great idea for a conference! This topic cuts across several experimental/observational areas, just as you have listed in your poster. I look forward to reports in your blog in mid-July. :)

Plato said...

Approaches to the Quantum Theory of Gravity by the PI Institute

Two methods evolved in the theory of elementary particles to describe such quantized flux tubes. The one, called the loop method, studies them using the basic laws of electricity and magnetism, combined with quantum theory. The second, called string theory, postulates that the quantized flux tubes may be treated as fundamental in their own right, and the laws of electricity and magnetism derived from them.

Many theorists believe that these two points of view are actually equivalent—just different ways of studying the same thing from different points of view. The idea that they are the same is called duality, which here, as in other areas, signals that the same object is being studied with different ideas and methods.


For those moving forward and not caught in the distinctions "to separate" but more toward resolutions of the issues of quantum gravity, I thought would help in that direction.

So with that in mind and whether you believe in gravitons or not or issues with the bulk, it behooves some to understand these distinctions

The jump from conventional field theories of point-like objects to a theory of one-dimensional objects has striking implications. The vibration spectrum of the string contains a massless spin-2 particle: the graviton. Its long wavelength interactions are described by Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Thus General Relativity may be viewed as a prediction of string theory!

How one see then in relation to bulk views is part of the distinction to be made, I feel, in relation to how one will approach the topic full well aware that there are indeed different methods which one can approach this issue of quantum gravity.


Best,

Arun said...

One thought which comes to mind is: ahead of your times!

But of course, that depends on which frame of reference you're in :)

All the best!
-Arun

Zephir said...

A nice poster: lens used even exhibits a spherical abberation... Is it a rendered image?

Zephir said...

The look through spherical lens would illustrate the duality of string and LQG theories (a T-duality)

http://tinyurl.com/y9z663m

Zephir said...

It means, the large letters ST (stand for "string theory") should appear in the loupe at your poster, because spin net would appears like isolated strings under large magnification.

Arun said...

If the names were intended to be arranged alphabetically by last name, then isnt' Stefan Hofmann out of place?

Arun said...

Dunno what the 5-pointed star denotes. Overall the poster is very easy on the eyes.

Bee said...

Zephir: I haven't used an actual 3d raytracer if that's what you mean. I made the image with Corel Photopaint. It's a photo of a magnifying glass over a background text. A spherically cropped QG with a lens over it (that makes the distortion. It's a similar tool that you use to make boobs bigger and tummies smaller). The rest is fiddling with the masks and adding layers. I've done some 3-d images (povray), but it takes a lot of time and in this case didn't really justify the effort. Best,

B.

Bee said...

Arun: You are right, shit. Anyway, the jpg in the post isn't the final version that will be printed. There's also a tilde missing on Joao and it should be Lämmerzahl, not Laemmerzahl. The 5-star is the Nordita-logo. Best,

B.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Bee,

I like your poster for. with the magnifying glass you have captured the spirit of the instrumentation, yet rather more like it would be thought of as a tool for SherlocK Holmes. You also have a great cast of characters as participants with many notables among them. However to coincide with the overall sleuthing theme you’ve set up you need to find a physicist with the proper last name to invite, to which you can respond” it’s all phenomenological my dear Watson “:-) So if you ever do tire of theoretical physics it appears you might be able to make a go of it in marketing. The trouble of course with marketing is rather than trying to satisfy natures demands which are usually logical, in this case it’s the public’s who seldom are and yet paradoxically more predictable. This has had me wonder whether free will is strictly a quality of nature that we only recognize as just a possibility for us.

Best,

Phil

Christine said...

Very nice, interesting and sounds a worthwhile event.

Giotis said...

Bee, I would be lying if I say that i liked it. It's grey and overloaded with names and text. Spice it up with some color like green, orange or red and reduce the text.

Bee said...

Hi Giotis:
Thanks for an honest opinion :-) It's not the greatest poster, but I think given the time and effort that I was willing to put into it, it's okay. (I'm a physicist, not a graphic designer!) There's practical reasons why the text is large and the graphics small: I used a photo and can't crank up the resolution arbitrarily. If I make the graphics larger, it will look grainy in A3 format. Colors are more complicated than you think and look easily cheapish (not to mention that they look differently when printed). Finally, I wanted to have the names on it so people actually put it on their door. In any case, unless you (or anybody else!) wants to send me a better version (A3 + 2cm, >200dpi), that's it. Best,

B.

Giotis said...

"In any case, unless you (or anybody else!) wants to send me a better version (A3 + 2cm, >200dpi), that's it."

Bee, you know that in most cases it's easier to criticize than to create. So I choose the comfort of criticism and I won't send you anything:-)

Steven Colyer said...

Giotis is honest which is refreshing. Given that people have a right to differ on opinions though seeing as how beauty is subjective, I like the layout, Bee.

First, the Nordita logo being the only splash of color draws attention to Nordita itself, which is good, and second the Black and White of the rest of the poster expresses the seriousness of the Conference, which i hope becomes a yearly if not bi-annual event.

Don't mind me, Bee, my parents were brilliant and met in art school so I know a lot about layout, color, message, etc.

I looked too closely though, for example one COULD interpret the cut-offed G in the lower left hand corner inside the glass as an "S", and one of the cut-off "Q's" to the east and NE as a sideways "T" which stands for ... oh nos! ST= String Theory!

lol Sorry, bye.

Plato said...

I dare these readers here to guess who wrote this below?:)


Observables of Quantum Gravity at the LHC

The search for a satisfying theory that unifies general relativity with quantum field theory is one of the major tasks for physicists in the 21st century. Within the last decade, the phenomenology of quantum gravity and string theory has been examined from various points of view, providing new perspectives and testable predictions. I will give a short introduction into these effective models which allow to extend the standard model and include the expected effects of the underlying fundamental theory. I will talk about models with extra dimensions, models with a minimal length scale and those with a deformation of Lorentz-invariance. The focus is on observable consequences, such as graviton and black hole production, black hole decays, and modifications of standard-model cross-sections.

In any investigative piece of work one's bias can indeed affect the perspective to which we assign our best methods of investigation. If one keeps an "open mind," then one will not lose in the opportunities to see that model approaches allow one to see in ways that he had not seen previous. So having the largest microscope in the world is a good perspective to have in terms of Sherlock Holmes lens to look at the very length scales for examination.

So you have to be prepared in terms of marrying phenomenology to the predictions of the theoretical in order to move on toward further discussions. See how applications of science push other areas like climate change as a responsive element in the particle search, could find some relation to LHC platform possibilities.

Scientists should be bold. They are expected to think out of the box, and to pursue their ideas until these either trickle down into a new stream, or dry out in the sand. Of course, not everybody can be a genuine “seer”: the progress of science requires few seers and many good soldiers who do the lower-level, dirty work. Even soldiers, however, are expected to put their own creativity in the process now and then -and that is why doing science is appealing even to us mortals. See:Of being bold

Best,

Plato said...

Some of you will appreciate this scale?:)

Image carrying this lens with you when you are in the everyday work of Quantum Gravity. How is it the length scales of one area can affect perspective on another? Why does it.

Discrete mathematics, also called finite mathematics or decision mathematics, is the study of mathematical structures that are fundamentally discrete in the sense of not supporting or requiring the notion of continuity. Objects studied in finite mathematics are largely countable sets such as integers, finite graphs, and formal languages.

You get to a certain point in terms of Planck length then(what is in the center of the blackhole and the thing had been mentioned by Lee as to ascribe a conformal field approach?) what do you do?

Abandon a "new form of mathematics?" Abandon the thought of pursuance of geometric forms?

Ideas of "continuity" then and must take over?

Best,

Plato said...

For Newton the universe lived in an infinite and featureless space.There was no boundary, and no possibility of conceiving anything outside of it. This was no problem for God, as he was everywhere. For Newton, space was the "sensorium" of God-the medium of his presence in and attachment to the world. The infinity of space was then a necessary reflection of the infinite capacity of God.The Life of the Cosmos By Lee Smolin Oxford University Press; New York, N.Y.: 1997, Page 91

We tend to build upon, and without these senses "what exists?" that perception could be sent freely through too, that the mind's pursuance it to consider whether something is real or not?

Best,

Arun said...

I printed out the poster on a color laser, and it looks good; it retains the brightness that it has on the (Macintosh) screen. (PCs typically have a different gamma setting.)

Steven Colyer said...

I dare these readers here to guess who wrote this below?:)

Would that be Sabine Hossenfelder at Loops 2007 ?

Plato said...

Yep! Your right Steven.

Plato said...

oh !I mean right person, wrong article.

Best,

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Bee,

After seeing Goitis’ critique of your poster I was almost sorry to have mentioned I liked it as this seemed to open the door. Interestingly enough shortly after making my comment I received notification from a forum I’m a member of there being a de Broglie-Bohm theory conference this coming summer as well. When I went to the web site to look at their conference poster I wanted to communicate to them to give Sabine Hossenfelder a call to plead for much needed help. I’m quite disappointed since the Bohmian’s have enough trouble getting their point across as it is without compounding their troubles. However Goitis might like it since it is very colourful. yet it looks to me like something one might find on any typical refrigerator door:-)



Best,

Phil

Roy J said...

Hi Sabine

Just wondering if you and/or any of your readers have caught up with the paper by Erik Verlinde proposing that gravity is "emergent" as an entropic force using holographic principles? This would of course have huge consequences for any proposed QG theory, ie LQG or String Theory as it would mean gravity is not fundamental but macroscopic after course graining from the fundamental entropic description. There could be no graviton, so no quantization?!

Do you anticipate discussion of this at the Workshop? I notice Lee Smolin has published a paper on this proposal and it's application to LQG which I am about to read. I would think it should be high on the Workshop agenda!? Verlinde's arguments are fairly convincing.

Cheers

Aaron said...

That's a gorgeous poster! If you don't mind me asking, which fonts are those?

Bee said...

Aaron: The font is AvantGarde Md BT and the italics are News702 BT. Best,

B.

Bee said...

Roy: I read both Verlinde's and Smolin's paper. It will not be part of the workshop because a) I don't see how it helps us understanding anything about quantum gravity (as in: the fundamental theory we're all looking for) b) the workshop is about experiment, not theory. So far I think there's no experimental test been proposed. Best,

B.

Bee said...

Hi Phil,

*lol*, indeed, that's what I would call an awful poster. Looks like a random generated screensaver from a photo-folder. Over the years though I've seen many awful posters. In theoretical physics there has been a fashion trend lately to wrap up pictures on 3-d surfaces that I believe started with the Toronto String conference (see here). It's a great poster, but it's kind of a mystery to me why everybody wants to copy this idea. You can wrap up pictures on surfaces with any decent 3-d tool. I suspect it's simply because it's an easy way to compactify a picture (quite literally). Last instance that crossed my way is this poster (which is a great poster too, looks very professional). Best,

B.

Steven Colyer said...

Thank you very much for those last 2 posters, Bee. I never thought discussion here would turn to poster design! What fun. :-)

Yes that last poster is well done, and similar to yours in that what little color it has draws the eye to it. It also brilliantly uses the rule of thirds so important in photography, and painting. (or "drawering" as Mike Myers as Simon the Cheeky Monkey would say)

I don't like the Strings '05 poster, 'cept for the C-N Tower, which is always awesome. Too much color, too busy, and the NOT-subtle reminder of the way-too-many multiple dimensions of ST makes my blood boil.

It does look nice that the stringy dimensions seem to be being tossed into a black hole. Seems like the appropriate use for them.

Also, thanks ever so much for finally offering your thoughts on Verlinde, or Verlinde/Jacobson to be more accurate (or one divided by Jacobson to be precise). Your points are well taken.

Giotis said...

Did you notice the horrified look on the pig heads? I guess an introduction to the foundations of QM was too much for them to handle:-)

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Bee,

Yes those are nice posters. With the one I pointed out I think whoever composed it must have been inspired yet confused by the old adage pf a picture replacing a thousand words as to think the more pictures the better. In as a poster is to convey information I can see the late J.S. Bell complaining here of his fellow Bohmian as he did with the information approach in general “information about what”!!! Then of course perhaps this is to suggest that although the information may appear randomized it’s only indicative of our limit to knowledge and not a consequence of a lack of determinacy:-)

This discussion reminds me of when I first became interested in photography many years ago having me to read a book by David Vestal entitled ‘The Craft of Photography’ in which he said in the conclusion of the introduction:

”This book is for anyone who wants to learn the craft of making first class black and white photographs. Photography is an art as well, but art is not teachable. If you want art you need to bring your own.”

Best,

Phil

Steven Colyer said...

Yeah, that poster is extraordinarily bad, Phil. The computer has given us an "Anyone Can Do Art" world. That doesn't mean they can do it well.

Yeah, Giotis, lol, boars heads! Makes ME want to pack off the wife and kids and fly to Tuscany. Sure it does.

Black and white photographs lasts longer than color film, or used to anyway, but um, who uses film anymore other than professionals? I remember using it in Mach-Zehnder Interferomenter experimentation.

B & W is tougher to do well with (requires more artistic talent), yet is oddly pleasing in an unexpected way. Ansel Adams in Yosemite, for example.

Well, we lost three good guys this week:

- Andrew Lange, 53, CalTech Cosmologist (link is to CalTech's official press release

- Geoffrey Burbidge, 83, Enlishman and UCSD professor, co-author of the famous B²FH paper (links to his Wikipedia page)

- Howard Zinn, 89, Historian and author of "The People's History of the United States", one of the most eye-opening books of all time (links to CNN)

Steven Colyer said...

Sorry, this is the correct link to Zinn.

Plato said...

So it's about experiments....nice.

Just had to get a few issues out of the way so that they could focus properly:) You know, sort of preempt:)

I would have added the largest microscope in the world to direct the thinking toward experimentation and I am sure the jest of it would have followed?:) You know....the LHC.:)

I think you asked once before in relation to CPT?

The two clocks depicted in the official logo for the CPT '04 meeting are related by the parity transformation (P). The inversion of black and white represents charge conservation (C), while time reversal (T) is represented by the movement of the hands of the clock in opposite directions.

I still think this funny below.

Soupsymmetry, I mean supesymmetry... er, I mean supersymmetry??:)

Plato said...

A better imagehere.

Here's a thought.

A Holographic image on your poster that changes depending on the direction your looking at it?:)

Best,

Steven Colyer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steven Colyer said...

Plato wrote: Soupsymmetry, I mean supesymmetry... er, I mean supersymmetry??:)

Yeah. Lisa Randall screwed up, which is amazing because SUSY is HER thing, though Lisa Randall is walking a VERY fine line between QG, Superstrings, and SUSY (which the LHC will either confirm, or SPECTACULARLY deny as bullcrap), as I point out here.

Which is not to take away from Lisa Randall's fine work, truth or not. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time.

Arun said...

Soupsymmetry

Really? When can I have some sminestrone?