Tag Archives: gravity

Gravity-Defying Theories

Universal gravitation was arguably Newton’s greatest discovery. Newton realized that the same laws could describe the orbits of the planets and the fall of objects on Earth, that bodies like the Moon can be fully understood only if you take into account both the Earth and the Sun’s gravity. In a Newtonian world, every mass attracts every other mass in a tiny, but detectable way.

Einstein, in turn, explained why. In Einstein’s general theory of relativity, gravity comes from the shape of space and time. Mass attracts mass, but energy affects gravity as well. Anything that can be measured has a gravitational effect, because the shape of space and time is nothing more than the rules by which we measure distances and times. So gravitation really is universal, and has to be universal.

…except when it isn’t.

It turns out, physicists can write down theories with some odd properties. Including theories where things are, in a certain sense, immune to gravity.

The story started with two mathematicians, Shiing-Shen Chern and Jim Simons. Chern and Simons weren’t trying to say anything in particular about physics. Instead, they cared about classifying different types of mathematical space. They found a formula that, when added up over one of these spaces, counted some interesting properties of that space. A bit more specifically, it told them about the space’s topology: rough details, like the number of holes in a donut, that stay the same even if the space is stretched or compressed. Their formula was called the Chern-Simons Form.

The physicist Albert Schwarz saw this Chern-Simons Form, and realized it could be interpreted another way. He looked at it as a formula describing a quantum field, like the electromagnetic field, describing how the field’s energy varied across space and time. He called the theory describing the field Chern-Simons Theory, and it was one of the first examples of what would come to be known as topological quantum field theories.

In a topological field theory, every question you might want to ask can be answered in a topological way. Write down the chance you observe the fields at particular strengths in particular places, and you’ll find that the answer you get only depends on the topology of the space the fields occupy. The answers are the same if the space is stretched or squished together. That means that nothing you ask depends on the details of how you measure things, that nothing depends on the detailed shape of space and time. Your theory is, in a certain sense, independent of gravity.

Others discovered more theories of this kind. Edward Witten found theories that at first looked like they depend on gravity, but where the gravity secretly “cancels out”, making the theory topological again. It turned out that there were many ways to “twist” string theory to get theories of this kind.

Our world is for the most part not described by a topological theory, gravity matters! (Though it can be a good approximation for describing certain materials.) These theories are most useful, though, in how they allow physicists and mathematicians to work together. Physicists don’t have a fully mathematically rigorous way of defining most of their theories, just a series of approximations and an overall picture that’s supposed to tie them together. For a topological theory, though, that overall picture has a rigorous mathematical meaning: it counts topological properties! As such, topological theories allow mathematicians to prove rigorous results about physical theories. It means they can take a theory of quantum fields or strings that has a particular property that physicists are curious about, and find a version of that property that they can study in fully mathematical rigorous detail. It’s been a boon both to mathematicians interested in topology, and to physicists who want to know more about their theories.

So while you won’t have antigravity boots any time soon, theories that defy gravity are still useful!

Cause and Effect and Stories

Amplitudes 2023 Retrospective

11 Replies

I’m back from CERN this week, with a bit more time to write, so I thought I’d share some thoughts about last week’s Amplitudes conference.

One thing I got wrong in last week’s post: I’ve now been told only 213 people actually showed up in person, as opposed to the 250-ish estimate I had last week. This may seem fewer than Amplitudes in Prague had, but it seems likely they had a few fewer show up than appeared on the website. Overall, the field is at least holding steady from year to year, and definitely has grown since the pandemic (when 2019’s 175 was already a very big attendance).

It was cool having a conference in CERN proper, surrounded by the history of European particle physics. The lecture hall had an abstract particle collision carved into the wood, and the visitor center would in principle have had Standard Model coffee mugs were they not sold out until next May. (There was still enough other particle physics swag, Swiss chocolate, and Swiss chocolate that was also particle physics swag.) I’d planned to stay on-site at the CERN hostel, but I ended up appreciated not doing that: the folks who did seemed to end up a bit cooped up by the end of the conference, even with the conference dinner as a chance to get out.

Past Amplitudes conferences have had associated public lectures. This time we had a not-supposed-to-be-public lecture, a discussion between Nima Arkani-Hamed and Beate Heinemann about the future of particle physics. Nima, prominent as an amplitudeologist, also has a long track record of reasoning about what might lie beyond the Standard Model. Beate Heinemann is an experimentalist, one who has risen through the ranks of a variety of different particle physics experiments, ending up well-positioned to take a broad view of all of them.

It would have been fun if the discussion erupted into an argument, but despite some attempts at provocative questions from the audience that was not going to happen, as Beate and Nima have been friends for a long time. Instead, they exchanged perspectives: on what’s coming up experimentally, and what theories could explain it. Both argued that it was best to have many different directions, a variety of experiments covering a variety of approaches. (There wasn’t any evangelism for particular experiments, besides a joking sotto voce mention of a muon collider.) Nima in particular advocated that, whether theorist or experimentalist, you have to have some belief that what you’re doing could lead to a huge breakthrough. If you think of yourself as just a “foot soldier”, covering one set of checks among many, then you’ll lose motivation. I think Nima would agree that this optimism is irrational, but necessary, sort of like how one hears (maybe inaccurately) that most new businesses fail, but someone still needs to start businesses.

Michelangelo Mangano’s talk on Thursday covered similar ground, but with different emphasis. He agrees that there are still things out there worth discovering: that our current model of the Higgs, for instance, is in some ways just a guess: a simplest-possible answer that doesn’t explain as much as we’d like. But he also emphasized that Standard Model physics can be “new physics” too. Just because we know the model doesn’t mean we can calculate its consequences, and there are a wealth of results from the LHC that improve our models of protons, nuclei, and the types of physical situations they partake in, without changing the Standard Model.

We saw an impressive example of this in Gregory Korchemsky’s talk on Wednesday. He presented an experimental mystery, an odd behavior in the correlation of energies of jets of particles at the LHC. These jets can include a very large number of particles, enough to make it very hard to understand them from first principles. Instead, Korchemsky tried out our field’s favorite toy model, where such calculations are easier. By modeling the situation in the limit of a very large number of particles, he was able to reproduce the behavior of the experiment. The result was a reminder of what particle physics was like before the Standard Model, and what it might become again: partial models to explain odd observations, a quest to use the tools of physics to understand things we can’t just a priori compute.

On the other hand, amplitudes does do a priori computations pretty well as well. Fabrizio Caola’s talk opened the conference by reminding us just how much our precise calculations can do. He pointed out that the LHC has only gathered 5% of its planned data, and already it is able to rule out certain types of new physics to fairly high energies (by ruling out indirect effects, that would show up in high-precision calculations). One of those precise calculations featured in the next talk, by Guilio Gambuti. (A FORM user, his diagrams were the basis for the header image of my Quanta article last winter.) Tiziano Peraro followed up with a technique meant to speed up these kinds of calculations, a trick to simplify one of the more computationally intensive steps in intersection theory.

The rest of Monday was more mathematical, with talks by Zeno Capatti, Jaroslav Trnka, Chia-Kai Kuo, Anastasia Volovich, Francis Brown, Michael Borinsky, and Anna-Laura Sattelberger. Borinksy’s talk felt the most practical, a refinement of his numerical methods complete with some actual claims about computational efficiency. Francis Brown discussed an impressively powerful result, a set of formulas that manages to unite a variety of invariants of Feynman diagrams under a shared explanation.

Tuesday began with what I might call “visitors”: people from adjacent fields with an interest in amplitudes. Alday described how the duality between string theory in AdS space and super Yang-Mills on the boundary can be used to get quite concrete information about string theory, calculating how the theory’s amplitudes are corrected by the curvature of AdS space using a kind of “bootstrap” method that felt nicely familiar. Tim Cohen talked about a kind of geometric picture of theories that extend the Standard Model, including an interesting discussion of whether it’s really “geometric”. Marko Simonovic explained how the integration techniques we develop in scattering amplitudes can also be relevant in cosmology, especially for the next generation of “sky mappers” like the Euclid telescope. This talk was especially interesting to me since this sort of cosmology has a significant presence at CEA Paris-Saclay. Along those lines an interesting paper, “Cosmology meets cohomology”, showed up during the conference. I haven’t had a chance to read it yet!

Just before lunch, we had David Broadhurst give one of his inimitable talks, complete with number theory, extremely precise numerics, and literary and historical references (apparently, Källén died flying his own plane). He also remedied a gap in our whimsically biological diagram naming conventions, renaming the pedestrian “double-box” as a (in this context, Orwellian) lobster. Karol Kampf described unusual structures in a particular Effective Field Theory, while Henriette Elvang’s talk addressed what would become a meaningful subtheme of the conference, where methods from the mathematical field of optimization help amplitudes researchers constrain the space of possible theories. Giulia Isabella covered another topic on this theme later in the day, though one of her group’s selling points is managing to avoid quite so heavy-duty computations.

The other three talks on Tuesday dealt with amplitudes techniques for gravitational wave calculations, as did the first talk on Wednesday. Several of the calculations only dealt with scattering black holes, instead of colliding ones. While some of the results can be used indirectly to understand the colliding case too, a method to directly calculate behavior of colliding black holes came up again and again as an important missing piece.

The talks on Wednesday had to start late, owing to a rather bizarre power outage (the lights in the room worked fine, but not the projector). Since Wednesday was the free afternoon (home of quickly sold-out CERN tours), this meant there were only three talks: Veneziano’s talk on gravitational scattering, Korchemsky’s talk, and Nima’s talk. Nima famously never finishes on time, and this time attempted to control his timing via the surprising method of presenting, rather than one topic, five “abstracts” on recent work that he had not yet published. Even more surprisingly, this almost worked, and he didn’t run too ridiculously over time, while still managing to hint at a variety of ways that the combinatorial lessons behind the amplituhedron are gradually yielding useful perspectives on more general realistic theories.

Thursday, Andrea Puhm began with a survey of celestial amplitudes, a topic that tries to build the same sort of powerful duality used in AdS/CFT but for flat space instead. They’re gradually tackling the weird, sort-of-theory they find on the boundary of flat space. The two next talks, by Lorenz Eberhardt and Hofie Hannesdottir, shared a collaborator in common, namely Sebastian Mizera. They also shared a common theme, taking a problem most people would have assumed was solved and showing that approaching it carefully reveals extensive structure and new insights.

Cristian Vergu, in turn, delved deep into the literature to build up a novel and unusual integration method. We’ve chatted quite a bit about it at the Niels Bohr Institute, so it was nice to see it get some attention on the big stage. We then had an afternoon of trips beyond polylogarithms, with talks by Anne Spiering, Christoph Nega, and Martijn Hidding, each pushing the boundaries of what we can do with our hardest-to-understand integrals. Einan Gardi and Ruth Britto finished the day, with a deeper understanding of the behavior of high-energy particles and a new more mathematically compatible way of thinking about “cut” diagrams, respectively.

On Friday, João Penedones gave us an update on a technique with some links to the effective field theory-optimization ideas that came up earlier, one that “bootstraps” whole non-perturbative amplitudes. Shota Komatsu talked about an intriguing variant of the “planar” limit, one involving large numbers of particles and a slick re-writing of infinite sums of Feynman diagrams. Grant Remmen and Cliff Cheung gave a two-parter on a bewildering variety of things that are both surprisingly like, and surprisingly unlike, string theory: important progress towards answering the question “is string theory unique?”

Friday afternoon brought the last three talks of the conference. James Drummond had more progress trying to understand the symbol letters of supersymmetric Yang-Mills, while Callum Jones showed how Feynman diagrams can apply to yet another unfamiliar field, the study of vortices and their dynamics. Lance Dixon closed the conference without any Greta Thunberg references, but with a result that explains last year’s mystery of antipodal duality. The explanation involves an even more mysterious property called antipodal self-duality, so we’re not out of work yet!

What RIBs Could Look Like

Leave a reply

The journal Nature recently published an opinion piece about a new concept for science funding called Research Impact Bonds (or RIBs).

Normally, when a government funds something, they can’t be sure it will work. They pay in advance, and have to guess whether a program will do what they expect, or whether a project will finish on time. Impact bonds are a way for them to pay afterwards, so they only pay for projects that actually deliver. Instead, the projects are funded by private investors, who buy “impact bonds” that guarantee them a share of government funding if the project is successful. Here’s an example given in the Nature piece:

For instance, say the Swiss government promises to pay up to one million Swiss francs (US$1.1 million) to service providers that achieve a measurable outcome, such as reducing illiteracy in a certain population by 5%, within a specified number of years. A broker finds one or more service providers that think they can achieve this at a cost of, say, 900,000 francs, as well as investors who agree to pay these costs up front — thus taking on the risk of the project — for a potential 10% gain if successful. If the providers achieve their goals, the government pays 990,000 francs: 900,000 francs for the work and a 90,000-franc investment return. If the project does not succeed, the investors lose their money, but the government does not.

The author of the piece, Michael Hill, thinks that this could be a new way for governments to fund science. In his model, scientists would apply to the government to propose new RIBs. The projects would have to have specific goals and time-frames: “measure the power of this cancer treatment to this accuracy in five years”, for example. If the government thinks the goal is valuable, they commit to paying some amount of money if the goal is reached. Then investors can decide whether the investment is worthwhile. The projects they expect to work get investor money, and if they do end up working the investors get government money. The government only has to pay if the projects work, but the scientists get paid regardless.

Ok, what’s the catch?

One criticism I’ve seen is that this kind of model could only work for very predictable research, maybe even just for applied research. While the author admits RIBs would only be suitable for certain sorts of projects, I think the range is wider than you might think. The project just has to have a measurable goal by a specified end date. Many particle physics experiments work that way: a dark matter detector, for instance, is trying to either rule out or detect dark matter to a certain level of statistical power within a certain run time. Even “discovery” machines, that we build to try to discover the unexpected, usually have this kind of goal: a bigger version of the LHC, for instance, might try to measure the coupling of Higgs bosons to a certain accuracy.

There are a few bigger issues with this model, though. If you go through the math in Hill’s example, you’ll notice that if the project works, the government ends up paying one million Swiss francs for a service that only cost the provider 900,000 Swiss francs. Under a normal system, the government would only have had to pay 900,000. This gets compensated by the fact that not every project works, so the government only pays for some projects and not others. But investors will be aware of this, and that means the government can’t offer too many unrealistic RIBs: the greater the risk investors are going to take, the more return they’ll expect. On average then, the government would have to pay about as much as they would normally: the cost of the projects that succeed, plus enough money to cover the risk that some fail. (In fact, they’d probably pay a bit more, to give the investors a return on the investment.)

So the government typically won’t save money, at least not if they want to fund the same amount of research. Instead, the idea is that they will avoid risk. But it’s not at all clear to me that the type of risk they avoid is one they want to.

RIBs might appeal to voters: it might sound only fair that a government only funds the research that actually works. That’s not really a problem for the government itself, though: because governments usually pay for many small projects, they still get roughly as much success overall as they want, they just don’t get to pick where. Instead, RIBS put the government agency in a much bigger risk, the risk of unexpected success. As part of offering RIBs, the government would have to estimate how much money they would be able to pay when the projects end. They would want to fund enough projects so that, on average, they pay that amount of money. (Otherwise, they’d end up funding science much less than they do now!) But if the projects work out better than expected, then they’d have to pay much more than they planned. And government science agencies usually can’t do this. In many countries, they can’t plan far in advance at all: their budgets get decided by legislators year to year, and delays in decisions mean delays in funding. If an agency offered RIBs that were more successful than expected, they’d either have to cut funding somewhere else (probably firing a lot of people), or just default on their RIBs, weakening the concept for the next time they used them. These risks, unlike the risk of individual experiments not working, are risks that can really hurt government agencies.

Impact bonds typically have another advantage, in that they spread out decision-making. The Swiss government in Hill’s example doesn’t have to figure out which service providers can increase literacy, or how much it will cost them: it just puts up a budget, and lets investors and service providers figure out if they can make it work. This also serves as a hedge against corruption. If the government made the decisions, they might distribute funding for unrelated political reasons or even out of straight-up bribery. They’d also have to pay evaluators to figure things out. Investors won’t take bribes to lose money, so in theory would be better at choosing projects that will actually work, and would have a vested interest in paying for a good investigation.

This advantage doesn’t apply to Hill’s model of RIBs, though. In Hill’s model, scientists still need to apply to the government to decide which of their projects get offered as RIBs, so the government still needs to decide which projects are worth investing in. Then the scientists or the government need to take another step, and convince investors. The scientists in this equation effectively have to apply twice, which anyone who has applied for a government grant will realize is quite a lot of extra time and effort.

So overall, I don’t think Hills’ model of RIBs is useful, even for the purpose he imagines. It’s too risky for government science agencies to commit to payments like that, and it generates more, not less, work for scientists and the agency.

Hill’s model, though, isn’t the only way RIBs can work. And “avoiding risk” isn’t the only reason we might want them. There are two other reasons one might want RIBs, with very different-sounding motivations.

First, you might be pessimistic about mainstream science. Maybe you think scientists are making bad decisions, choosing ideas that either won’t pan out or won’t have sufficient impact, based more on fashion than on careful thought. You want to incentivize them to do better, to try to work out what impact they might have with some actual numbers and stand by their judgement. If that’s your perspective, you might be interested in RIBs for the same reason other people are interested in prediction markets: by getting investors involved, you have people willing to pay for an accurate estimate.

Second, you might instead be optimistic about mainstream science. You think scientists are doing great work, work that could have an enormous impact, but they don’t get to “capture that value”. Some projects might be essential to important, well-funded goals, but languish unrewarded. Others won’t see their value until long in the future, or will do so in unexpected ways. If scientists could fund projects based on their future impact, with RIBs, maybe they could fund more of this kind of work.

(I first started thinking about this perspective due to a talk by Sabrina Pasterski. The talk itself offended a lot of people, and had some pretty impractical ideas, like selling NFTs of important physics papers. But I think one part of the perspective, that scientists have more impact than we think, is worth holding on to.)

If you have either of those motivations, Hill’s model won’t help. But another kind of model perhaps could. Unlike Hill’s, it could fund much more speculative research, ideas where we don’t know the impact until decades down the line. To demonstrate, I’ll show how it could fund some very speculative research: the work of Peter van Nieuwenhuizen.

Peter van Nieuwenhuizen is one of the pioneers of the theory of supergravity, a theory that augments gravity with supersymmetric partner particles. From its beginnings in the 1970’s, the theory ended up having a major impact on string theory, and today they are largely thought of as part of the same picture of how the universe might work.

His work has, over time, had more practical consequences though. In the 2000’s, researchers working with supergravity noticed a calculational shortcut: they could do a complicated supergravity calculation as the “square” of a much simpler calculation in another theory, called Yang-Mills. Over time, they realized the shortcut worked not just for supergravity, but for ordinary gravity as well, and not just for particle physics calculations but for gravitational wave calculations. Now, their method may make an important contribution to calculations for future gravitational wave telescopes like the Einstein telescope, letting them measure properties of neutron stars.

With that in mind, imagine the following:

In 1967, Jocelyn Bell Burnell and Antony Hewish detected a pulsar, in one of the first direct pieces of evidence for the existence of neutron stars. Suppose that in the early 1970’s NASA decided to announce a future purchase of RIBs: in 2050, they would pay a certain amount to whoever was responsible for finding the equation of state of a neutron star, the formula that describes how its matter moves under pressure. They compute based on estimates of economic growth and inflation, and arrive at some suitably substantial number.

At the same time, but unrelatedly, van Nieuwenhuizen and collaborators sell RIBs. Maybe they use the proceeds to buy more computer time for their calculations, or to refund travel so they can more easily meet and discuss. They tell the buyers that, if some government later decides to reward their discoveries, the holders of the RIB would get a predetermined cut of the rewards.

The years roll by, and barring some unexpected medical advances the discoverers of supergravity die. In the meantime, researchers use their discovery to figure out how to make accurate predictions of gravitational waves from merging neutron stars. When the Einstein telescope turns out, it detects such a merger, and the accurate predictions let them compute the neutron star’s equation of state.

In 2050, then, NASA looks back. They make a list of everyone who contributed to the discovery of the neutron star’s equation of state, every result that was needed for the discovery, and try to estimate how important each contribution was. Then they spend the money they promised buying RIBs, up to the value for each contributor. This includes RIBs originally held by the investors in van Nieuwenhuizen and collaborators. Their current holders make some money, justifying whatever value they paid from their previous owners.

Imagine a world in which government agencies do this kind of thing all the time. Scientists could sell RIBs in their projects, without knowing exactly which agency would ultimately pay for them. Rather than long grant applications, they could write short summaries for investors, guessing at the range of their potential impact, and it would be up to the investors to decide whether the estimate made sense. Scientists could get some of the value of their discoveries, even when that value is quite unpredictable. And they would be incentivized to pick discoveries that could have high impact, and to put a bit of thought and math into what kind of impact that could be.

(Should I still be calling these things bonds, when the buyers don’t know how much they’ll be worth at the end? Probably not. These are more like research impact shares, on a research impact stock market.)

Are there problems with this model, then? Oh sure, loads!

I already mentioned that it’s hard for government agencies to commit to spending money five years down the line. A seventy-year commitment, from that perspective, sounds completely ridiculous.

But we don’t actually need that in the model. All we need is a good reason for investors to think that, eventually, NASA will buy some research impact shares. If government agencies do this regularly, then they would have that reason. They could buy a variety of theoretical developments, a diversified pool to make it more likely some government agency would reward them. This version of the model would be riskier, though, so they’d want more return in exchange.

Another problem is the decision-making aspect. Government agencies wouldn’t have to predict the future, but they would have to accurately assess the past, fairly estimating who contributed to a project, and they would have to do it predictably enough that it could give rise to worthwhile investments. This is itself both controversial and a lot of work. If we figure out the neutron star equation of state, I’m not sure I trust NASA to reward van Nieuwenhuizen’s contribution to it.

This leads to the last modification of the model, and the most speculative one. Over time, government agencies will get better and better at assigning credit. Maybe they’ll have better models of how scientific progress works, maybe they’ll even have advanced AI. A future government (or benevolent AI, if you’re into that) might decide to buy research impact shares in order to validate important past work.

If you believe that might happen, then you don’t need a track record of government agencies buying research impact shares. As a scientist, you can find a sufficiently futuristically inclined investor, and tell them this story. You can sell them some shares, and tell them that, when the AI comes, they will have the right to whatever benefit it bestows upon your research.

I could imagine some people doing this. If you have an image of your work saving humanity in the distant future, you should be able to use that image to sell something to investors. It would be insanely speculative, a giant pile of what-ifs with no guarantee of any of it cashing out. But at least it’s better than NFTs.

Another Window on Gravitational Waves

Solutions and Solutions

3 Replies

The best misunderstandings are detective stories. You can notice when someone is confused, but digging up why can take some work. If you manage, though, you learn much more than just how to correct the misunderstanding. You learn something about the words you use, and the assumptions you make when using them.

Recently, someone was telling me about a book they’d read on Karl Schwarzschild. Schwarzschild is famous for discovering the equations that describe black holes, based on Einstein’s theory of gravitation. To make the story more dramatic, he did so only shortly before dying from a disease he caught fighting in the first World War. But this person had the impression that Schwarzschild had done even more. According to this person, the book said that Schwarzschild had done something to prove Einstein’s theory, or to complete it.

Another Schwarzschild accomplishment: that mustache

At first, I thought the book this person had read was wrong. But after some investigation, I figured out what happened.

The book said that Schwarzschild had found the first exact solution to Einstein’s equations. That’s true, and as a physicist I know precisely what it means. But I now realize that the average person does not.

In school, the first equations you solve are algebraic, x+y=z. Some equations, like x^2=4, have solutions. Others, like x^2=-4, seem not to, until you learn about new types of numbers that solve them. Either way, you get used to equations being like a kind of puzzle, a question for which you need to find an answer.

If you’re thinking of equations like that, then it probably sounds like Schwarzschild “solved the puzzle”. If Schwarzschild found the first solution to Einstein’s equation, that means that Einstein did not. That makes it sound like Einstein’s work was incomplete, that he had asked the right question but didn’t yet know the right answer.

Einstein’s equations aren’t algebraic equations, though. They’re differential equations. Instead of equations for a variable, they’re equations for a mathematical function, a formula that, in this case, describes the curvature of space and time.

Scientists in many fields use differential equations, but they use them in different ways. If you’re a chemist or a biologist, it might be that you’re most used to differential equations with simple solutions, like sines, cosines, or exponentials. You learn how to solve these equations, and they feel a bit like the algebraic ones: you have a puzzle, and then you solve the puzzle.

Other fields, though, have tougher differential equations. If you’re a physicist or an engineer, you’ve likely met differential equations that you can’t treat in this way. If you’re dealing with fluid mechanics, or general relativity, or even just Newtonian gravity in an odd situation, you can’t usually solve the problem by writing down known functions like sines and cosines.

That doesn’t mean you can’t solve the problem at all, though!

Even if you can’t write down a solution to a differential equation with sines and cosines, a solution can still exist. (In some cases, we can even prove a solution exists!) It just won’t be written in terms of sines and cosines, or other functions you’ve learned in school. Instead, the solution will involve some strange functions, functions no-one has heard of before.

If you want, you can make up names for those functions. But unless you’re going to classify them in a useful way, there’s not much point. Instead, you work with these functions by approximation. You calculate them in a way that doesn’t give you the full answer, but that does let you estimate how close you are. That’s good enough to give you numbers, which in turn is good enough to compare to experiments. With just an approximate solution, like this, Einstein could check if his equations described the orbit of Mercury.

Once you know you can find these approximate solutions, you have a different perspective on equations. An equation isn’t just a mysterious puzzle. If you can approximate the solution, then you already know how to solve that puzzle. So we wouldn’t think of Einstein’s theory as incomplete because he was only able to find approximate solutions: for a theory as complicated as Einstein’s, that’s perfectly normal. Most of the time, that’s all we need.

But it’s still pretty cool when you don’t have to do this. Sometimes, we can not just approximate, but actually “write down” the solution, either using known functions or well-classified new ones. We call a solution like that an analytic solution, or an exact solution.

That’s what Schwarzschild managed. These kinds of exact solutions often only work in special situations, and Schwarzschild’s is no exception. His Schwarzschild solution works for matter in a special situation, arranged in a perfect sphere. If matter happened to be arranged in that way, then the shape of space and time would be exactly as Schwarzschild described it.

That’s actually pretty cool! Einstein’s equations are complicated enough that no-one was sure that there were any solutions like that, even in very special situations. Einstein expected it would be a long time until they could do anything except approximate solutions.

(If Schwarzschild’s solution only describes matter arranged in a perfect sphere, why do we think it describes real black holes? This took later work, by people like Roger Penrose, who figured out that matter compressed far enough will always find a solution like Schwarzschild’s.)

Schwarzschild intended to describe stars with his solution, or at least a kind of imaginary perfect star. What he found was indeed a good approximation to real stars, but also the possibility that a star shoved into a sufficiently small space would become something weird and new, something we would come to describe as a black hole. That’s a pretty impressive accomplishment, especially for someone on the front lines of World War One. And if you know the difference between an exact solution and an approximate one, you have some idea of what kind of accomplishment that is.

What’s a Cosmic String?

1 Reply

Nowadays, we have telescopes that detect not just light, but gravitational waves. We’ve already learned quite a bit about astrophysics from these telescopes. They observe ripples coming from colliding black holes, giving us a better idea of what kinds of black holes exist in the universe. But the coolest thing a gravitational wave telescope could discover is something that hasn’t been seen yet: a cosmic string.

This art is from an article in Symmetry magazine which is, as far as I can tell, not actually about cosmic strings.

You might have heard of cosmic strings, but unless you’re a physicist you probably don’t know much about them. They’re a prediction, coming from cosmology, of giant string-like objects floating out in space.

That might sound like it has something to do with string theory, but it doesn’t actually have to, you can have these things without any string theory at all. Instead, you might have heard that cosmic strings are some kind of “cracks” or “wrinkles” in space-time. Some articles describe this as like what happens when ice freezes, cracks forming as water settles into a crystal.

That description, in terms of ice forming cracks between crystals, is great…if you’re a physicist who already knows how ice forms cracks between crystals. If you’re not, I’m guessing reading those kinds of explanations isn’t helpful. I’m guessing you’re still wondering why there ought to be any giant strings floating in space.

The real explanation has to do with a type of mathematical gadget physicists use, called a scalar field. You can think of a scalar field as described by a number, like a temperature, that can vary in space and time. The field carries potential energy, and that energy depends on what the scalar field’s “number” is. Left alone, the field settles into a situation with as little potential energy as it can, like a ball rolling down a hill. That situation is one of the field’s default values, something we call a “vacuum” value. Changing the field away from its vacuum value can take a lot of energy. The Higgs boson is one example of a scalar field. Its vacuum value is the value it has in day to day life. In order to make a detectable Higgs boson at the Large Hadron Collider, they needed to change the field away from its vacuum value, and that took a lot of energy.

In the very early universe, almost back at the Big Bang, the world was famously in a hot dense state. That hot dense state meant that there was a lot of energy to go around, so scalar fields could vary far from their vacuum values, pretty much randomly. As the universe expanded and cooled, there was less and less energy available for these fields, and they started to settle down.

Now, the thing about these default, “vacuum” values of a scalar field is that there doesn’t have to be just one of them. Depending on what kind of mathematical function the field’s potential energy is, there could be several different possibilities each with equal energy.

Let’s imagine a simple example, of a field with two vacuum values: +1 and -1. As the universe cooled down, some parts of the universe would end up with that scalar field number equal to +1, and some to -1. But what happens in between?

The scalar field can’t just jump from -1 to +1, that’s not allowed in physics. It has to pass through 0 in between. But, unlike -1 and +1, 0 is not a vacuum value. When the scalar field number is equal to 0, the field has more energy than it does when it’s equal to -1 or +1. Usually, a lot more energy.

That means the region of scalar field number 0 can’t spread very far: the further it spreads, the more energy it takes to keep it that way. On the other hand, the region can’t vanish altogether: something needs to happen to transition between the numbers -1 and +1.

The thing that happens is called a domain wall. A domain wall is a thin sheet, as thin as it can physically be, where the scalar field doesn’t take its vacuum value. You can roughly think of it as made up of the scalar field, a churning zone of the kind of bosons the LHC was trying to detect.

This sheet still has a lot of energy, bound up in the unusual value of the scalar field, like an LHC collision in every proton-sized chunk. As such, like any object with a lot of energy, it has a gravitational field. For a domain wall, the effect of this gravity would be very very dramatic: so dramatic, that we’re pretty sure they’re incredibly rare. If they were at all common, we would have seen evidence of them long before now!

Ok, I’ve shown you a wall, that’s weird, sure. What does that have to do with cosmic strings?

The number representing a scalar field doesn’t have to be a real number: it can be imaginary instead, or even complex. Now I’d like you to imagine a field with vacuum values on the unit circle, in the complex plane. That means that +1 and -1 are still vacuum values, but so are $e^{i \pi/2}$ , and $e^{3 i \pi/2}$ , and everything else you can write as $e^{i\theta}$ . However, 0 is still not a vacuum value. Neither is, for example, $2 e^{i\pi/3}$ .

With vacuum values like this, you can’t form domain walls. You can make a path between -1 and +1 that only goes through the unit circle, through $e^{i \pi/2}$ for example. The field will be at its vacuum value throughout, taking no extra energy.

However, imagine the different regions form a circle. In the picture above, suppose that the blue area at the bottom is at vacuum value -1 and red is at +1. You might have $e^{i \pi/2}$ in the green region, and $e^{3 i \pi/2}$ in the purple region, covering the whole circle smoothly as you go around.

Now, think about what happens in the middle of the circle. On one side of the circle, you have -1. On the other, +1. (Or, on one side $e^{i \pi/2}$ , on the other, $e^{3 i \pi/2}$ ). No matter what, different sides of the circle are not allowed to be next to each other, you can’t just jump between them. So in the very middle of the circle, something else has to happen.

Once again, that something else is a field that goes away from its vacuum value, that passes through 0. Once again, that takes a lot of energy, so it occupies as little space as possible. But now, that space isn’t a giant wall. Instead, it’s a squiggly line: a cosmic string.

Cosmic strings don’t have as dramatic a gravitational effect as domain walls. That means they might not be super-rare. There might be some we haven’t seen yet. And if we do see them, it could be because they wiggle space and time, making gravitational waves.

Cosmic strings don’t require string theory, they come from a much more basic gadget, scalar fields. We know there is one quite important scalar field, the Higgs field. The Higgs vacuum values aren’t like +1 and -1, or like the unit circle, though, so the Higgs by itself won’t make domain walls or cosmic strings. But there are a lot of proposals for scalar fields, things we haven’t discovered but that physicists think might answer lingering questions in particle physics, and some of those could have the right kind of vacuum values to give us cosmic strings. Thus, if we manage to detect cosmic strings, we could learn something about one of those lingering questions.

On Stubbornness and Breaking Down

9 Replies

In physics, we sometimes say that an idea “breaks down”. What do we mean by that?

When a theory “breaks down”, we mean that it stops being accurate. Newton’s theory of gravity is excellent most of the time, but for objects under strong enough gravity or high enough speed its predictions stop matching reality and a new theory (relativity) is needed. This is the sense in which we say that Newtonian gravity breaks down for the orbit of mercury, or breaks down much more severely in the area around a black hole.

When a symmetry is “broken”, we mean that it stops holding true. Most of physics looks the same when you flip it in a mirror, a property called parity symmetry. Take a pile of electric and magnetic fields, currents and wires, and you’ll find their mirror reflection is also a perfectly reasonable pile of electric and magnetic fields, currents and wires. This isn’t true for all of physics, though: the weak nuclear force isn’t the same when you flip it in a mirror. We say that the weak force breaks parity symmetry.

What about when a more general “idea” breaks down? What about space-time?

In order for space-time to break down, there needs to be a good reason to abandon the idea. And depending on how stubborn you are about it, that reason can come at different times.

You might think of space-time as just Einstein’s theory of general relativity. In that case, you could say that space-time breaks down as soon as the world deviates from that theory. In that view, any modification to general relativity, no matter how small, corresponds to space-time breaking down. You can think of this as the “least stubborn” option, the one with barely any stubbornness at all, that will let space-time break down with a tiny nudge.

But if general relativity breaks down, a slightly more stubborn person could insist that space-time is still fine. You can still describe things as located at specific places and times, moving across curved space-time. They just obey extra forces, on top of those built into the space-time.

Such a person would be happy as long as general relativity was a good approximation of what was going on, but they might admit space-time has broken down when general relativity becomes a bad approximation. If there are only small corrections on top of the usual space-time picture, then space-time would be fine, but if those corrections got so big that they overwhelmed the original predictions of general relativity then that’s quite a different situation. In that situation, space-time may have stopped being a useful description, and it may be much better to describe the world in another way.

But we could imagine an even more stubborn person who still insists that space-time is fine. Ultimately, our predictions about the world are mathematical formulas. No matter how complicated they are, we can always subtract a piece off of those formulas corresponding to the predictions of general relativity, and call the rest an extra effect. That may be a totally useless thing to do that doesn’t help you calculate anything, but someone could still do it, and thus insist that space-time still hasn’t broken down.

To convince such a person, space-time would need to break down in a way that made some important concept behind it invalid. There are various ways this could happen, corresponding to different concepts. For example, one unusual proposal is that space-time is non-commutative. If that were true then, in addition to the usual Heisenberg uncertainty principle between position and momentum, there would be an uncertainty principle between different directions in space-time. That would mean that you can’t define the position of something in all directions at once, which many people would agree is an important part of having a space-time!

Ultimately, physics is concerned with practicality. We want our concepts not just to be definable, but to do useful work in helping us understand the world. Our stubbornness should depend on whether a concept, like space-time, is still useful. If it is, we keep it. But if the situation changes, and another concept is more useful, then we can confidently say that space-time has broken down.

LHC Black Holes for the Terminally Un-Reassured

12 Replies

Could the LHC have killed us all?

No, no it could not.

But…

I’ve had this conversation a few times over the years. Usually, the people I’m talking to are worried about black holes. They’ve heard that the Large Hadron Collider speeds up particles to amazingly high energies before colliding them together. They worry that these colliding particles could form a black hole, which would fall into the center of the Earth and busily gobble up the whole planet.

This pretty clearly hasn’t happened. But also, physicists were pretty confident that it couldn’t happen. That isn’t to say they thought it was impossible to make a black hole with the LHC. Some physicists actually hoped to make a black hole: it would have been evidence for extra dimensions, curled-up dimensions much larger than the tiny ones required by string theory. They figured out the kind of evidence they’d see if the LHC did indeed create a black hole, and we haven’t seen that evidence. But even before running the machine, they were confident that such a black hole wouldn’t gobble up the planet. Why?

The best argument is also the most unsatisfying. The LHC speeds up particles to high energies, but not unprecedentedly high energies. High-energy particles called cosmic rays enter the atmosphere every day, some of which are at energies comparable to the LHC. The LHC just puts the high-energy particles in front of a bunch of sophisticated equipment so we can measure everything about them. If the LHC could destroy the world, cosmic rays would have already done so.

That’s a very solid argument, but it doesn’t really explain why. Also, it may not be true for future colliders: we could build a collider with enough energy that cosmic rays don’t commonly meet it. So I should give another argument.

The next argument is Hawking radiation. In Stephen Hawking’s most famous accomplishment, he argued that because of quantum mechanics black holes are not truly black. Instead, they give off a constant radiation of every type of particle mixed together, shrinking as it does so. The radiation is faintest for large black holes, but gets more and more intense the smaller the black hole is, until the smallest black holes explode into a shower of particles and disappear. This argument means that a black hole small enough that the LHC could produce it would radiate away to nothing in almost an instant: not long enough to leave the machine, let alone fall to the center of the Earth.

This is a good argument, but maybe you aren’t as sure as I am about Hawking radiation. As it turns out, we’ve never measured Hawking radiation, it’s just a theoretical expectation. Remember that the radiation gets fainter the larger the black hole is: for a black hole in space with the mass of a star, the radiation is so tiny it would be almost impossible to detect even right next to the black hole. From here, in our telescopes, we have no chance of seeing it.

So suppose tiny black holes didn’t radiate, and suppose the LHC could indeed produce them. Wouldn’t that have been dangerous?

Here, we can do a calculation. I want you to appreciate how tiny these black holes would be.

From science fiction and cartoons, you might think of a black hole as a kind of vacuum cleaner, sucking up everything nearby. That’s not how black holes work, though. The “sucking” black holes do is due to gravity, no stronger than the gravity of any other object with the same mass at the same distance. The only difference comes when you get close to the event horizon, an invisible sphere close-in around the black hole. Pass that line, and the gravity is strong enough that you will never escape.

We know how to calculate the position of the event horizon of a black hole. It’s the Schwarzchild radius, and we can write it in terms of Newton’s constant G, the mass of the black hole M, and the speed of light c, as follows:

$\frac{2GM}{c^2}$

The Large Hadron Collider’s two beams each have an energy around seven tera-electron-volts, or TeV, so there are 14 TeV of energy in total in each collision. Imagine all of that energy being converted into mass, and that mass forming a black hole. That isn’t how it would actually happen: some of the energy would create other particles, and some would give the black hole a “kick”, some momentum in one direction or another. But we’re going to imagine a “worst-case” scenario, so let’s assume all the energy goes to form the black hole. Electron-volts are a weird physicist unit, but if we divide them by the speed of light squared (as we should if we’re using $E=mc^2$ to create a mass), then Wikipedia tells us that each electron-volt will give us $1.78\times 10^{-36}$ kilograms. “Tera” is the SI prefix for $10^{12}$ . Thus our tiny black hole starts with a mass of

$14\times 10^{12}\times 1.78\times 10^{-36} = 2.49\times 10^{-23} \textrm{kg}$

Plugging in Newton’s constant ( $6.67\times 10^{-11}$ meters cubed per kilogram per second squared), and the speed of light ( $3\times 10^8$ meters per second), and we get a radius of,

$\frac{2\times 6.67\times 10^{-11}\times 14\times 10^{12}\times 1.78\times 10^{-36}}{\left(3\times 10^8\right)^2} = 3.7\times 10^{-50} \textrm{m}$

That, by the way, is amazingly tiny. The size of an atom is about $10^{-10}$ meters. If every atom was a tiny person, and each of that person’s atoms was itself a person, and so on for five levels down, then the atoms of the smallest person would be the same size as this event horizon.

Now, we let this little tiny black hole fall. Let’s imagine it falls directly towards the center of the Earth. The only force affecting it would be gravity (if it had an electrical charge, it would quickly attract a few electrons and become neutral). That means you can think of it as if it were falling through a tiny hole, with no friction, gobbling up anything unfortunate enough to fall within its event horizon.

For our first estimate, we’ll treat the black hole as if it stays the same size through its journey. Imagine the black hole travels through the entire earth, absorbing a cylinder of matter. Using the Earth’s average density of 5515 kilograms per cubic meter, and the Earth’s maximum radius of 6378 kilometers, our cylinder adds a mass of,

$\pi \times \left(3.7\times 10^{-50}\right)^2 \times 2 \times 6378\times 10^3\times 5515 = 3\times 10^{-88} \textrm{kg}$

That’s absurdly tiny. That’s much, much, much tinier than the mass we started out with. Absorbing an entire cylinder through the Earth makes barely any difference.

You might object, though, that the black hole is gaining mass as it goes. So really we ought to use a differential equation. If the black hole travels a distance r, absorbing mass as it goes at average Earth density $\rho$ , then we find,

$\frac{dM}{dr}=\pi\rho\left(\frac{2GM(r)}{c^2}\right)^2$

Solving this, we get

$M(r)=\frac{M_0}{1- M_0 \pi\rho\left(\frac{2G}{c^2}\right)^2 r }$

Where $M_0$ is the mass we start out with.

Plug in the distance through the Earth for r, and we find…still about $3\times 10^{-88} \textrm{kg}$ ! It didn’t change very much, which makes sense, it’s a very very small difference!

But you might still object. A black hole falling through the Earth wouldn’t just go straight through. It would pass through, then fall back in. In fact, it would oscillate, from one side to the other, like a pendulum. This is actually a common problem to give physics students: drop an object through a hole in the Earth, neglect air resistance, and what does it do? It turns out that the time the object takes to travel through the Earth is independent of its mass, and equal to roughly 84.5 minutes.

So let’s ask a question: how long would it take for a black hole, oscillating like this, to double its mass?

We want to solve,

$2=\frac{1}{1- M_0 \pi\rho\left(\frac{2G}{c^2}\right)^2 r }$

so we need the black hole to travel a total distance of

$r=\frac{1}{2M_0 \pi\rho\left(\frac{2G}{c^2}\right)^2} = 5.3\times 10^{71} \textrm{m}$

That’s a huge distance! The Earth’s radius, remember, is 6378 kilometers. So traveling that far would take

$5.3\times 10^{71} \times 84.5/60/24/365 = 8\times 10^{67} \textrm{y}$

Ten to the sixty-seven years. Our universe is only about ten to the ten years old. In another five times ten to the nine years, the Sun will enter its red giant phase, and swallow the Earth. There simply isn’t enough time for this tiny tiny black hole to gobble up the world, before everything is already gobbled up by something else. Even in the most pessimistic way to walk through the calculation, it’s just not dangerous.

I hope that, if you were worried about black holes at the LHC, you’re not worried any more. But more than that, I hope you’ve learned three lessons. First, that even the highest-energy particle physics involves tiny energies compared to day-to-day experience. Second, that gravitational effects are tiny in the context of particle physics. And third, that with Wikipedia access, you too can answer questions like this. If you’re worried, you can make an estimate, and check!

The Problem of Quantum Gravity Is the Problem of High-Energy (Density) Quantum Gravity

21 Replies

I’ve said something like this before, but here’s another way to say it.

The problem of quantum gravity is one of the most famous problems in physics. You’ve probably heard someone say that quantum mechanics and general relativity are fundamentally incompatible. Most likely, this was narrated over pictures of a foaming, fluctuating grid of space-time. Based on that, you might think that all we have to do to solve this problem is to measure some quantum property of gravity. Maybe we could make a superposition of two different gravitational fields, see what happens, and solve the problem that way.

I mean, we could do that, some people are trying to. But it won’t solve the problem. That’s because the problem of quantum gravity isn’t just the problem of quantum gravity. It’s the problem of high-energy quantum gravity.

Merging quantum mechanics and general relativity is actually pretty easy. General relativity is a big conceptual leap, certainly, a theory in which gravity is really just the shape of space-time. At the same time, though, it’s also a field theory, the same general type of theory as electromagnetism. It’s a weirder field theory than electromagnetism, to be sure, one with deeper implications. But if we want to describe low energies, and weak gravitational fields, then we can treat it just like any other field theory. We know how to write down some pretty reasonable-looking equations, we know how to do some basic calculations with them. This part is just not that scary.

The scary part happens later. The theory we get from these reasonable-looking equations continues to look reasonable for a while. It gives formulas for the probability of things happening: things like gravitational waves bouncing off each other, as they travel through space. The problem comes when those waves have very high energy, and the nice reasonable probability formula now says that the probability is greater than one.

For those of you who haven’t taken a math class in a while, probabilities greater than one don’t make sense. A probability of one is a certainty, something guaranteed to happen. A probability greater than one isn’t more certain than certain, it’s just nonsense.

So we know something needs to change, we know we need a new theory. But we only know we need that theory when the energy is very high: when it’s the Planck energy. Before then, we might still have a different theory, but we might not: it’s not a “problem” yet.

Now, a few of you understand this part, but still have a misunderstanding. The Planck energy seems high for particle physics, but it isn’t high in an absolute sense: it’s about the energy in a tank of gasoline. Does that mean that all we have to do to measure quantum gravity is to make a quantum state out of your car?

Again, no. That’s because the problem of quantum gravity isn’t just the problem of high-energy quantum gravity either.

Energy seems objective, but it’s not. It’s subjective, or more specifically, relative. Due to special relativity, observers moving at different speeds observe different energies. Because of that, high energy alone can’t be the requirement: it isn’t something either general relativity or quantum field theory can “care about” by itself.

Instead, the real thing that matters is something that’s invariant under special relativity. This is hard to define in general terms, but it’s best to think of it as a requirement for not energy, but energy density.

(For the experts: I’m justifying this phrasing in part because of how you can interpret the quantity appearing in energy conditions as the energy density measured by an observer. This still isn’t the correct way to put it, but I can’t think of a better way that would be understandable to a non-technical reader. If you have one, let me know!)

Why do we need quantum gravity to fully understand black holes? Not just because they have a lot of mass, but because they have a lot of mass concentrated in a small area, a high energy density. Ditto for the Big Bang, when the whole universe had a very large energy density. Particle colliders are useful not just because they give particles high energy, but because they give particles high energy and put them close together, creating a situation with very high energy density.

Once you understand this, you can use it to think about whether some experiment or observation will help with the problem of quantum gravity. Does the experiment involve very high energy density, much higher than anything we can do in a particle collider right now? Is that telescope looking at something created in conditions of very high energy density, or just something nearby?

It’s not impossible for an experiment that doesn’t meet these conditions to find something. Whatever the correct quantum gravity theory is, it might be different from our current theories in a more dramatic way, one that’s easier to measure. But the only guarantee, the only situation where we know we need a new theory, is for very high energy density.

4 gravitons

Stories about physics from someone who's been there