# At Mikefest

I’m at a conference this week of a very particular type: a birthday conference. When folks in my field turn 60, their students and friends organize a special conference for them, celebrating their research legacy. With COVID restrictions just loosening, my advisor Michael Douglas is getting a last-minute conference. And as one of the last couple students he graduated at Stony Brook, I naturally showed up.

The conference, Mikefest, is at the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques, just outside of Paris. Mike was a big supporter of the IHES, putting in a lot of fundraising work for them. Another big supporter, James Simons, was Mike’s employer for a little while after his time at Stony Brook. The conference center we’re meeting in is named for him.

I wasn’t involved in organizing the conference, so it was interesting seeing differences between this and other birthday conferences. Other conferences focus on the birthday prof’s “family tree”: their advisor, their students, and some of their postdocs. We’ve had several talks from Mike’s postdocs, and one from his advisor, but only one from a student. Including him and me, three of Mike’s students are here: another two have had their work mentioned but aren’t speaking or attending.

Most of the speakers have collaborated with Mike, but only for a few papers each. All of them emphasized a broader debt though, for discussions and inspiration outside of direct collaboration. The message, again and again, is that Mike’s work has been broad enough to touch a wide range of people. He’s worked on branes and the landscape of different string theory universes, pure mathematics and computation, neuroscience and recently even machine learning. The talks generally begin with a few anecdotes about Mike, before pivoting into research talks on the speakers’ recent work. The recent-ness of the work is perhaps another difference from some birthday conferences: as one speaker said, this wasn’t just a celebration of Mike’s past, but a “welcome back” after his return from the finance world.

One thing I don’t know is how much this conference might have been limited by coming together on short notice. For other birthday conferences impacted by COVID (and I’m thinking of one in particular), it might be nice to have enough time to have most of the birthday prof’s friends and “academic family” there in person. As-is, though, Mike seems to be having fun regardless.

Happy Birthday Mike!

# Things Which Are Fluids

For overambitious apes like us, adding integers is the easiest thing in the world. Take one berry, add another, and you have two. Each remains separate, you can lay them in a row and count them one by one, each distinct thing adding up to a group of distinct things.

Other things in math are less like berries. Add two real numbers, like pi and the square root of two, and you get another real number, bigger than the first two, something you can write in an infinite messy decimal. You know in principle you can separate it out again (subtract pi, get the square root of two), but you can’t just stare at it and see the parts. This is less like adding berries, and more like adding fluids. Pour some water in to some other water, and you certainly have more water. You don’t have “two waters”, though, and you can’t tell which part started as which.

Some things in math look like berries, but are really like fluids. Take a polynomial, say $5 x^2 + 6 x + 8$. It looks like three types of things, like three berries: five $x^2$, six $x$, and eight $1$. Add another polynomial, and the illusion continues: add $x^2 + 3 x + 2$ and you get $6 x^2+9 x+10$. You’ve just added more $x^2$, more $x$, more $1$, like adding more strawberries, blueberries, and raspberries.

But those berries were a choice you made, and not the only one. You can rewrite that first polynomial, for example saying $5(x^2+2x+1) - 4 (x+1) + 7$. That’s the same thing, you can check. But now it looks like five $x^2+2x+1$, negative four $x+1$, and seven $1$. It’s different numbers of different things, blackberries or gooseberries or something. And you can do this in many ways, infinitely many in fact. The polynomial isn’t really a collection of berries, for all it looked like one. It’s much more like a fluid, a big sloshing mess you can pour into buckets of different sizes. (Technically, it’s a vector space. Your berries were a basis.)

Even smart, advanced students can get tripped up on this. You can be used to treating polynomials as a fluid, and forget that directions in space are a fluid, one you can rotate as you please. If you’re used to directions in space, you’ll get tripped up by something else. You’ll find that types of particles can be more fluid than berry, the question of which quark is which not as simple as how many strawberries and blueberries you have. The laws of physics themselves are much more like a fluid, which should make sense if you take a moment, because they are made of equations, and equations are like a fluid.

So my fellow overambitious apes, do be careful. Not many things are like berries in the end. A whole lot are like fluids.

# W is for Why???

Have you heard the news about the W boson?

The W boson is a fundamental particle, part of the Standard Model of particle physics. It is what we call a “force-carrying boson”, a particle related to the weak nuclear force in the same way photons are related to electromagnetism. Unlike photons, W bosons are “heavy”: they have a mass. We can’t usually predict masses of particles, but the W boson is a bit different, because its mass comes from the Higgs boson in a special way, one that ties it to the masses of other particles like the Z boson. The upshot is that if you know the mass of a few other particles, you can predict the mass of the W.

And according to a recent publication, that prediction is wrong. A team analyzed results from an old experiment called the Tevatron, the biggest predecessor of today’s Large Hadron Collider. They treated the data with groundbreaking care, mindbogglingly even taking into account the shape of the machine’s wires. And after all that analysis, they found that the W bosons detected by the Tevatron had a different mass than the mass predicted by the Standard Model.

How different? Here’s where precision comes in. In physics, we decide whether to trust a measurement with a statistical tool. We calculate how likely the measurement would be, if it was an accident. In this case: how likely it would be that, if the Standard Model was correct, the measurement would still come out this way? To discover a new particle, we require this chance to be about one in 3.5 million, or in our jargon, five sigma. That was the requirement for discovering the Higgs boson. This super-precise measurement of the W boson doesn’t have five sigma…it has seven sigma. That means, if we trust the analysis team, then a measurement like this could come accidentally out of the Standard Model only about one in a trillion times.

Ok, should we trust the analysis team?

If you want to know that, I’m the wrong physicist to ask. The right physicists are experimental particle physicists. They do analyses like that one, and they know what can go wrong. Everyone I’ve heard from in that field emphasized that this was a very careful group, who did a lot of things impressively right…but there is still room for mistakes. One pointed out that the new measurement isn’t just inconsistent with the Standard Model, but with many previous measurements too. Those measurements are less precise, but still precise enough that we should be a bit skeptical. Another went into more detail about specific clues as to what might have gone wrong.

If you can’t find an particle experimentalist, the next best choice is a particle phenomenologist. These are the people who try to make predictions for new experiments, who use theoretical physics to propose new models that future experiments can test. Here’s one giving a first impression, and discussing some ways to edit the Standard Model to agree with the new measurement. Here’s another discussing what to me is an even more interesting question: if we take these measurements seriously, both the new one and the old ones, then what do we believe?

I’m not an experimentalist or a phenomenologist. I’m an “amplitudeologist”. I work not on the data, or the predictions, but the calculational tools used to make those predictions, called “scattering amplitudes”. And that gives me a different view on the situation.

See in my field, precision is one of our biggest selling-points. If you want theoretical predictions to match precise experiments, you need our tricks to compute them. We believe (and argue to grant agencies) that this precision will be important: if a precise experiment and a precise prediction disagree, it could be the first clue to something truly new. New solid evidence of something beyond the Standard Model would revitalize all of particle physics, giving us a concrete goal and killing fruitless speculation.

This result shakes my faith in that a little. Probably, the analysis team got something wrong. Possibly, all previous analyses got something wrong. Either way, a lot of very careful smart people tried to estimate their precision, got very confident…and got it wrong.

(There’s one more alternative: maybe million-to-one chances really do crop up nine times out of ten.)

If some future analysis digs down deep in precision, and finds another deviation from the Standard Model, should we trust it? What if it’s measuring something new, and we don’t have the prior experiments to compare to?

(This would happen if we build a new even higher-energy collider. There are things the collider could measure, like the chance one Higgs boson splits into two, that we could not measure with any earlier machine. If we measured that, we couldn’t compare it to the Tevatron or the LHC, we’d have only the new collider to go on.)

Statistics are supposed to tell us whether to trust a result. Here, they’re not doing their job. And that creates the scary possibility that some anomaly shows up, some real deviation deep in the sigmas that hints at a whole new path for the field…and we just end up bickering about who screwed it up. Or the equally scary possibility that we find a seven-sigma signal of some amazing new physics, build decades of new theories on it…and it isn’t actually real.

We don’t just trust statistics. We also trust the things normal people trust. Do other teams find the same result? (I hope that they’re trying to get to this same precision here, and see what went wrong!) Does the result match other experiments? Does it make predictions, which then get tested in future experiments?

All of those are heuristics of course. Nothing can guarantee that we measure the truth. Each trick just corrects for some of our biases, some of the ways we make mistakes. We have to hope that’s good enough, that if there’s something to see we’ll see it, and if there’s nothing to see we won’t. Precision, my field’s raison d’être, can’t be enough to convince us by itself. But it can help.

# The Undefinable

If I can teach one lesson to all of you, it’s this: be precise. In physics, we try to state what we mean as precisely as we can. If we can’t state something precisely, that’s a clue: maybe what we’re trying to state doesn’t actually make sense.

Someone recently reached out to me with a question about black holes. He was confused about how they were described, about what would happen when you fall in to one versus what we could see from outside. Part of his confusion boiled down to a question: “is the center really an infinitely small point?”

I remembered a commenter a while back who had something interesting to say about this. Trying to remind myself of the details, I dug up this question on Physics Stack Exchange. user4552 has a detailed, well-referenced answer, with subtleties of General Relativity that go significantly beyond what I learned in grad school.

According to user4552, the reason this question is confusing is that the usual setup of general relativity cannot answer it. In general relativity, singularities like the singularity in the middle of a black hole aren’t treated as points, or collections of points: they’re not part of space-time at all. So you can’t count their dimensions, you can’t see whether they’re “really” infinitely small points, or surfaces, or lines…

This might surprise people (like me) who have experience with simpler equations for these things, like the Schwarzchild metric. The Schwarzchild metric describes space-time around a black hole, and in the usual coordinates it sure looks like the singularity is at a single point where r=0, just like the point where r=0 is a single point in polar coordinates in flat space. The thing is, though, that’s just one sort of coordinates. You can re-write a metric in many different sorts of coordinates, and the singularity in the center of a black hole might look very different in those coordinates. In general relativity, you need to stick to things you can say independent of coordinates.

Ok, you might say, so the usual mathematics can’t answer the question. Can we use more unusual mathematics? If our definition of dimensions doesn’t tell us whether the singularity is a point, maybe we just need a new definition!

According to user4552, people have tried this…and it only sort of works. There are several different ways you could define the dimension of a singularity. They all seem reasonable in one way or another. But they give different answers! Some say they’re points, some say they’re three-dimensional. And crucially, there’s no obvious reason why one definition is “right”. The question we started with, “is the center really an infinitely small point?”, looked like a perfectly reasonable question, but it actually wasn’t: the question wasn’t precise enough.

This is the real problem. The problem isn’t that our question was undefined, after all, we can always add new definitions. The problem was that our question didn’t specify well enough the definitions we needed. That is why the question doesn’t have an answer.

Once you understand the difference, you see these kinds of questions everywhere. If you’re baffled by how mass could have come out of the Big Bang, or how black holes could radiate particles in Hawking radiation, maybe you’ve heard a physicist say that energy isn’t always conserved. Energy conservation is a consequence of symmetry, specifically, symmetry in time. If your space-time itself isn’t symmetric (the expanding universe making the past different from the future, a collapsing star making a black hole), then you shouldn’t expect energy to be conserved.

I sometimes hear people object to this. They ask, is it really true that energy isn’t conserved when space-time isn’t symmetric? Shouldn’t we just say that space-time itself contains energy?

And well yes, you can say that, if you want. It isn’t part of the usual definition, but you can make a new definition, one that gives energy to space-time. In fact, you can make more than one new definition…and like the situation with the singularity, these definitions don’t always agree! Once again, you asked a question you thought was sensible, but it wasn’t precise enough to have a definite answer.

Keep your eye out for these kinds of questions. If scientists seem to avoid answering the question you want, and keep answering a different question instead…it might be their question is the only one with a precise answer. You can define a method to answer your question, sure…but it won’t be the only way. You need to ask precise enough questions to get good answers.

# Of Snowmass and SAGEX

arXiv-watchers might have noticed an avalanche of papers with the word Snowmass in the title. (I contributed to one of them.)

Snowmass is a place, an area in Colorado known for its skiing. It’s also an event in that place, the Snowmass Community Planning Exercise for the American Physical Society’s Division of Particles and Fields. In plain terms, it’s what happens when particle physicists from across the US get together in a ski resort to plan their future.

Usually someone like me wouldn’t be involved in that. (And not because it’s a ski resort.) In the past, these meetings focused on plans for new colliders and detectors. They got contributions from experimentalists, and a few theorists heavily focused on their work, but not the more “formal” theorists beyond.

This Snowmass is different. It’s different because of Corona, which changed it from a big meeting in a resort to a spread-out series of meetings and online activities. It’s also different because they invited theorists to contribute, and not just those interested in particle colliders. The theorists involved study everything from black holes and quantum gravity to supersymmetry and the mathematics of quantum field theory. Groups focused on each topic submit “white papers” summarizing the state of their area. These white papers in turn get organized and summarized into a few subfields, which in turn contribute to the planning exercise. No-one I’ve talked to is entirely clear on how this works, how much the white papers will actually be taken into account or by whom. But it seems like a good chance to influence US funding agencies, like the Department of Energy, and see if we can get them to prioritize our type of research.

Europe has something similar to Snowmass, called the European Strategy for Particle Physics. It also has smaller-scale groups, with their own purposes, goals, and funding sources. One such group is called SAGEX: Scattering Amplitudes: from Geometry to EXperiment. SAGEX is an Innovative Training Network, an organization funded by the EU to train young researchers, in this case in scattering amplitudes. Its fifteen students are finishing their PhDs and ready to take the field by storm. Along the way, they spent a little time in industry internships (mostly at Maple and Mathematica), and quite a bit of time working on outreach.

They have now summed up that outreach work in an online exhibition. I’ve had fun exploring it over the last couple days. They’ve got a lot of good content there, from basic explanations of relativity and quantum mechanics, to detailed games involving Feynman diagrams and associahedra, to a section that uses solitons as a gentle introduction to integrability. If you’re in the target audience, you should check it out!

# Duality and Emergence: When Is Spacetime Not Spacetime?

Spacetime is doomed! At least, so say some physicists. They don’t mean this as a warning, like some comic-book universe-destroying disaster, but rather as a research plan. These physicists believe that what we think of as space and time aren’t the full story, but that they emerge from something more fundamental, so that an ultimate theory of nature might not use space or time at all. Other, grumpier physicists are skeptical. Joined by a few philosophers, they think the “spacetime is doomed” crowd are over-excited and exaggerating the implications of their discoveries. At the heart of the argument is the distinction between two related concepts: duality and emergence.

In physics, sometimes we find that two theories are actually dual: despite seeming different, the patterns of observations they predict are the same. Some of the more popular examples are what we call holographic theories. In these situations, a theory of quantum gravity in some space-time is dual to a theory without gravity describing the edges of that space-time, sort of like how a hologram is a 2D image that looks 3D when you move it. For any question you can ask about the gravitational “bulk” space, there is a matching question on the “boundary”. No matter what you observe, neither description will fail.

If theories with gravity can be described by theories without gravity, does that mean gravity doesn’t really exist? If you’re asking that question, you’re asking whether gravity is emergent. An emergent theory is one that isn’t really fundamental, but instead a result of the interaction of more fundamental parts. For example, hydrodynamics, the theory of fluids like water, emerges from more fundamental theories that describe the motion of atoms and molecules.

(For the experts: I, like most physicists, am talking about “weak emergence” here, not “strong emergence”.)

The “spacetime is doomed” crowd think that not just gravity, but space-time itself is emergent. They expect that distances and times aren’t really fundamental, but a result of relationships that will turn out to be more fundamental, like entanglement between different parts of quantum fields. As evidence, they like to bring up dualities where the dual theories have different concepts of gravity, number of dimensions, or space-time. Using those theories, they argue that space and time might “break down”, and not be really fundamental.

The skeptics, though, bring up an important point. If two theories are really dual, then no observation can distinguish them: they make exactly the same predictions. In that case, say the skeptics, what right do you have to call one theory more fundamental than the other? You can say that gravity emerges from a boundary theory without gravity, but you could just as easily say that the boundary theory emerges from the gravity theory. The whole point of duality is that no theory is “more true” than the other: one might be more or less convenient, but both describe the same world. If you want to really argue for emergence, then your “more fundamental” theory needs to do something extra: to predict something that your emergent theory doesn’t predict.

Sometimes this is a fair objection. There are members of the “spacetime is doomed” crowd who are genuinely reckless about this, who’ll tell a journalist about emergence when they really mean duality. But many of these people are more careful, and have thought more deeply about the question. They tend to have some mix of these two perspectives:

First, if two descriptions give the same results, then do the descriptions matter? As physicists, we have a history of treating theories as the same if they make the same predictions. Space-time itself is a result of this policy: in the theory of relativity, two people might disagree on which one of two events happened first or second, but they will agree on the overall distance in space-time between the two. From this perspective, a duality between a bulk theory and a boundary theory isn’t evidence that the bulk theory emerges from the boundary, but it is evidence that both the bulk and boundary theories should be replaced by an “overall theory”, one that treats bulk and boundary as irrelevant descriptions of the same physical reality. This perspective is similar to an old philosophical theory called positivism: that statements are meaningless if they cannot be derived from something measurable. That theory wasn’t very useful for philosophers, which is probably part of why some philosophers are skeptics of “space-time is doomed”. The perspective has been quite useful to physicists, though, so we’re likely to stick with it.

Second, some will say that it’s true that a dual theory is not an emergent theory…but it can be the first step to discover one. In this perspective, dualities are suggestive evidence that a deeper theory is waiting in the wings. The idea would be that one would first discover a duality, then discover situations that break that duality: examples on one side that don’t correspond to anything sensible on the other. Maybe some patterns of quantum entanglement are dual to a picture of space-time, but some are not. (Closer to my sub-field, maybe there’s an object like the amplituhedron that doesn’t respect locality or unitarity.) If you’re lucky, maybe there are situations, or even experiments, that go from one to the other: where the space-time description works until a certain point, then stops working, and only the dual description survives. Some of the models of emergent space-time people study are genuinely of this type, where a dimension emerges in a theory that previously didn’t have one. (For those of you having a hard time imagining this, read my old post about “bubbles of nothing”, then think of one happening in reverse.)

It’s premature to say space-time is doomed, at least as a definite statement. But it is looking like, one way or another, space-time won’t be the right picture for fundamental physics. Maybe that’s because it’s equivalent to another description, redundant embellishment on an essential theoretical core. Maybe instead it breaks down, and a more fundamental theory could describe more situations. We don’t know yet. But physicists are trying to figure it out.

# The Unpublishable Dirty Tricks of Theoretical Physics

As the saying goes, it is better not to see laws or sausages being made. You’d prefer to see the clean package on the outside than the mess behind the scenes.

The same is true of science. A good paper tells a nice, clean story: a logical argument from beginning to end, with no extra baggage to slow it down. That story isn’t a lie: for any decent paper in theoretical physics, the conclusions will follow from the premises. Most of the time, though, it isn’t how the physicist actually did it.

The way we actually make discoveries is messy. It involves looking for inspiration in all the wrong places: pieces of old computer code and old problems, trying to reproduce this or that calculation with this or that method. In the end, once we find something interesting enough, we can reconstruct a clearer, cleaner, story, something actually fit to publish. We hide the original mess partly for career reasons (easier to get hired if you tell a clean, heroic story), partly to be understood (a paper that embraced the mess of discovery would be a mess to read), and partly just due to that deep human instinct to not let others see us that way.

The trouble is, some of that “mess” is useful, even essential. And because it’s never published or put into textbooks, the only way to learn it is word of mouth.

A lot of these messy tricks involve numerics. Many theoretical physics papers derive things analytically, writing out equations in symbols. It’s easy to make a mistake in that kind of calculation, either writing something wrong on paper or as a bug in computer code. To correct mistakes, many things are checked numerically: we plug in numbers to make sure everything still works. Sometimes this means using an approximation, trying to make sure two things cancel to some large enough number of decimal places. Sometimes instead it’s exact: we plug in prime numbers, and can much more easily see if two things are equal, or if something is rational or contains a square root. Sometimes numerics aren’t just used to check something, but to find a solution: exploring many options in an easier numerical calculation, finding one that works, and doing it again analytically.

“Ansatze” are also common: our fancy word for an educated guess. These we sometimes admit, when they’re at the core of a new scientific idea. But the more minor examples go un-mentioned. If a paper shows a nice clean formula and proves it’s correct, but doesn’t explain how the authors got it…probably, they used an ansatz. This trick can go hand-in-hand with numerics as well: make a guess, check it matches the right numbers, then try to see why it’s true.

The messy tricks can also involve the code itself. In my field we often use “computer algebra” systems, programs to do our calculations for us. These systems are programming languages in their own right, and we need to write computer code for them. That code gets passed around informally, but almost never standardized. Mathematical concepts that come up again and again can be implemented very differently by different people, some much more efficiently than others.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable that we leave “the mess” out of our papers. They would certainly be hard to understand otherwise! But it’s a shame we don’t publish our dirty tricks somewhere, even in special “dirty tricks” papers. Students often start out assuming everything is done the clean way, and start doubting themselves when they notice it’s much too slow to make progress. Learning the tricks is a big part of learning to be a physicist. We should find a better way to teach them.

# The arXiv SciComm Challenge

Fellow science communicators, think you can explain everything that goes on in your field? If so, I have a challenge for you. Pick a day, and go through all the new papers on arXiv.org in a single area. For each one, try to give a general-audience explanation of what the paper is about. To make it easier, you can ignore cross-listed papers. If your field doesn’t use arXiv, consider if you can do the challenge with another appropriate site.

I’ll start. I’m looking at papers in the “High Energy Physics – Theory” area, announced 6 Jan, 2022. I’ll warn you in advance that I haven’t read these papers, just their abstracts, so apologies if I get your paper wrong!

arXiv:2201.01303 : Holographic State Complexity from Group Cohomology

This paper says it is a contribution to a Proceedings. That means it is based on a talk given at a conference. In my field, a talk like this usually won’t be presenting new results, but instead summarizes results in a previous paper. So keep that in mind.

There is an idea in physics called holography, where two theories are secretly the same even though they describe the world with different numbers of dimensions. Usually this involves a gravitational theory in a “box”, and a theory without gravity that describes the sides of the box. The sides turn out to fully describe the inside of the box, much like a hologram looks 3D but can be printed on a flat sheet of paper. Using this idea, physicists have connected some properties of gravity to properties of the theory on the sides of the box. One of those properties is complexity: the complexity of the theory on the sides of the box says something about gravity inside the box, in particular about the size of wormholes. The trouble is, “complexity” is a bit subjective: it’s not clear how to give a good definition for it for this type of theory. In this paper, the author studies a theory with a precise mathematical definition, called a topological theory. This theory turns out to have mathematical properties that suggest a well-defined notion of complexity for it.

arXiv:2201.01393 : Nonrelativistic effective field theories with enhanced symmetries and soft behavior

We sometimes describe quantum field theory as quantum mechanics plus relativity. That’s not quite true though, because it is possible to define a quantum field theory that doesn’t obey special relativity, a non-relativistic theory. Physicists do this if they want to describe a system moving much slower than the speed of light: it gets used sometimes for nuclear physics, and sometimes for modeling colliding black holes.

In particle physics, a “soft” particle is one with almost no momentum. We can classify theories based on how they behave when a particle becomes more and more soft. In normal quantum field theories, if they have special behavior when a particle becomes soft it’s often due to a symmetry of the theory, where the theory looks the same even if something changes. This paper shows that this is not true for non-relativistic theories: they have more requirements to have special soft behavior, not just symmetry. They “bootstrap” a few theories, using some general restrictions to find them without first knowing how they work (“pulling them up by their own bootstraps”), and show that the theories they find are in a certain sense unique, the only theories of that kind.

arXiv:2201.01552 : Transmutation operators and expansions for 1-loop Feynman integrands

In recent years, physicists in my sub-field have found new ways to calculate the probability that particles collide. One of these methods describes ordinary particles in a way resembling string theory, and from this discovered a whole “web” of theories that were linked together by small modifications of the method. This method originally worked only for the simplest Feynman diagrams, the “tree” diagrams that correspond to classical physics, but was extended to the next-simplest diagrams, diagrams with one “loop” that start incorporating quantum effects.

This paper concerns a particular spinoff of this method, that can find relationships between certain one-loop calculations in a particularly efficient way. It lets you express calculations of particle collisions in a variety of theories in terms of collisions in a very simple theory. Unlike the original method, it doesn’t rely on any particular picture of how these collisions work, either Feynman diagrams or strings.

arXiv:2201.01624 : Moduli and Hidden Matter in Heterotic M-Theory with an Anomalous U(1) Hidden Sector

In string theory (and its more sophisticated cousin M theory), our four-dimensional world is described as a world with more dimensions, where the extra dimensions are twisted up so that they cannot be detected. The shape of the extra dimensions influences the kinds of particles we can observe in our world. That shape is described by variables called “moduli”. If those moduli are stable, then the properties of particles we observe would be fixed, otherwise they would not be. In general it is a challenge in string theory to stabilize these moduli and get a world like what we observe.

This paper discusses shapes that give rise to a “hidden sector”, a set of particles that are disconnected from the particles we know so that they are hard to observe. Such particles are often proposed as a possible explanation for dark matter. This paper calculates, for a particular kind of shape, what the masses of different particles are, as well as how different kinds of particles can decay into each other. For example, a particle that causes inflation (the accelerating expansion of the universe) can decay into effects on the moduli and dark matter. The paper also shows how some of the moduli are made stable in this picture.

arXiv:2201.01630 : Chaos in Celestial CFT

One variant of the holography idea I mentioned earlier is called “celestial” holography. In this picture, the sides of the box are an infinite distance away: a “celestial sphere” depicting the angles particles go after they collide, in the same way a star chart depicts the angles between stars. Recent work has shown that there is something like a sensible theory that describes physics on this celestial sphere, that contains all the information about what happens inside.

This paper shows that the celestial theory has a property called quantum chaos. In physics, a theory is said to be chaotic if it depends very precisely on its initial conditions, so that even a small change will result in a large change later (the usual metaphor is a butterfly flapping its wings and causing a hurricane). This kind of behavior appears to be present in this theory.

arXiv:2201.01657 : Calculations of Delbrück scattering to all orders in αZ

Delbrück scattering is an effect where the nuclei of heavy elements like lead can deflect high-energy photons, as a consequence of quantum field theory. This effect is apparently tricky to calculate, and previous calculations have involved approximations. This paper finds a way to calculate the effect without those approximations, which should let it match better with experiments.

(As an aside, I’m a little confused by the claim that they’re going to all orders in αZ when it looks like they just consider one-loop diagrams…but this is probably just my ignorance, this is a corner of the field quite distant from my own.)

arXiv:2201.01674 : On Unfolded Approach To Off-Shell Supersymmetric Models

Supersymmetry is a relationship between two types of particles: fermions, which typically make up matter, and bosons, which are usually associated with forces. In realistic theories this relationship is “broken” and the two types of particles have different properties, but theoretical physicists often study models where supersymmetry is “unbroken” and the two types of particles have the same mass and charge. This paper finds a new way of describing some theories of this kind that reorganizes them in an interesting way, using an “unfolded” approach in which aspects of the particles that would normally be combined are given their own separate variables.

(This is another one I don’t know much about, this is the first time I’d heard of the unfolded approach.)

arXiv:2201.01679 : Geometric Flow of Bubbles

String theorists have conjectured that only some types of theories can be consistently combined with a full theory of quantum gravity, others live in a “swampland” of non-viable theories. One set of conjectures characterizes this swampland in terms of “flows” in which theories with different geometry can flow in to each other. The properties of these flows are supposed to be related to which theories are or are not in the swampland.

This paper writes down equations describing these flows, and applies them to some toy model “bubble” universes.

arXiv:2201.01697 : Graviton scattering amplitudes in first quantisation

This paper is a pedagogical one, introducing graduate students to a topic rather than presenting new research.

Usually in quantum field theory we do something called “second quantization”, thinking about the world not in terms of particles but in terms of fields that fill all of space and time. However, sometimes one can instead use “first quantization”, which is much more similar to ordinary quantum mechanics. There you think of a single particle traveling along a “world-line”, and calculate the probability it interacts with other particles in particular ways. This approach has recently been used to calculate interactions of gravitons, particles related to the gravitational field in the same way photons are related to the electromagnetic field. The approach has some advantages in terms of simplifying the results, which are described in this paper.

Merry Newtonmas, Everyone!

In past years, I’ve compared science to a gift: the ideal gift for the puzzle-fan, one that keeps giving new puzzles. I think people might not appreciate the scale of that gift, though.

Maybe you’ve heard the old joke that studying for a PhD means learning more and more about less and less until you know absolutely everything about nothing at all. This joke is overstating things: even when you’ve specialized down to nothing at all, you still won’t know everything.

If you read the history of science, it might feel like there are only a few important things going on at a time. You notice the simultaneous discoveries, like calculus from Newton and Liebniz and natural selection from Darwin and Wallace. You can get the impression that everyone was working on a few things, the things that would make it into the textbooks. In fact, though, there was always a lot to research, always many interesting things going on at once. As a scientist, you can’t escape this. Even if you focus on your own little area, on a few topics you care about, even in a small field, there will always be more going on than you can keep up with.

This is especially clear around the holiday season. As everyone tries to get results out before leaving on vacation, there is a tidal wave of new content. I have five papers open on my laptop right now (after closing four or so), and some recorded talks I keep meaning to watch. Two of the papers are the kind of simultaneous discovery I mentioned: two different groups noticing that what might seem like an obvious fact – that in classical physics, unlike in quantum, one can have zero uncertainty – has unexpected implications for our kind of calculations. (A third group got there too, but hasn’t published yet.) It’s a link I would never have expected, and with three groups coming at it independently you’d think it would be the only thing to pay attention to: but even in the same sub-sub-sub-field, there are other things going on that are just as cool! It’s wild, and it’s not some special quirk of my area: that’s science, for all us scientists. No matter how much you expect it to give you, you’ll get more, lifetimes and lifetimes worth. That’s a Newtonmas gift to satisfy anyone.

# Calculations of the Past

Last week was a birthday conference for one of the pioneers of my sub-field, Ettore Remiddi. I wasn’t there, but someone who was pointed me to some of the slides, including a talk by Stefano Laporta. For those of you who didn’t see my post a few weeks back, Laporta was one of Remiddi’s students, who developed one of the most important methods in our field and then vanished, spending ten years on an amazingly detailed calculation. Laporta’s talk covers more of the story, about what it was like to do precision calculations in that era.

“That era”, the 90’s through 2000’s, witnessed an enormous speedup in computers, and a corresponding speedup in what was possible. Laporta worked with Remiddi on the three-loop electron anomalous magnetic moment, something Remiddi had been working on since 1969. When Laporta joined in 1989, twenty-one of the seventy-two diagrams needed had still not been computed. They would polish them off over the next seven years, before Laporta dove in to four loops. Twenty years later, he had that four-loop result to over a thousand digits.

One fascinating part of the talk is seeing how the computational techniques change over time, as language replaces language and computer clusters get involved. As a student, Laporta learns a lesson we all often need: that to avoid mistakes, we need to do as little by hand as possible, even for something as simple as copying a one-line formula. Looking at his review of others’ calculations, it’s remarkable how many theoretical results had to be dramatically corrected a few years down the line, and how much still might depend on theoretical precision.

Another theme was one of Remiddi suggesting something and Laporta doing something entirely different, and often much more productive. Whether it was using the arithmetic-geometric mean for an elliptic integral instead of Gaussian quadrature, or coming up with his namesake method, Laporta spent a lot of time going his own way, and Remiddi quickly learned to trust him.

There’s a lot more in the slides that’s worth reading, including a mention of one of this year’s Physics Nobelists. The whole thing is an interesting look at what it takes to press precision to the utmost, and dedicate years to getting something right.