arxiv

The arxiv, started by Paul Ginsparg in 1991, was a pioneer for the Open Access movement in scientific publishing. Most (many?) working physicists, and an increasing number of scientists in other fields, take it for granted that they will share their research articles freely with everyone in the world by submitting to arxiv. The current submission rate is about 8,000 papers per month, and still growing linearly or possibly a bit faster.

In addition to providing fast and easy communication of new papers, the arxiv is a resource ripe for data-mining. Say hello to Paperscape, a project by Damien George of Cambridge and Rob Knegjens at Nikhef in the Netherlands. This fun (and possibly useful) new tool creates a categorized/zoomable/clickable/searchable map of every paper on the arxiv. Apparently it’s been around since March, but I only heard about it yesterday, possibly because of this post on physicsworld.com. So here’s the birds-eye view of what the arxiv looks like:

There is a lot of data displayed here in quite a dense way. The different colors represent different arxiv categories: condensed matter, astrophysics, and so on. High-energy physics dominates the map, in part because that was the first field to participate in arxiv in the first place. Each circle is an individual paper, with the size representing the number of times that paper has been cited (within arxiv). You can pick out some of the big hits in the field — the accelerating universe, cosmic microwave background observations, AdS/CFT, extra dimensions, and so on. The locations aren’t random, either; circles are placed in proximity depending on how often they cite each other. So the fact that contiguous regions all have the same color isn’t built into the mapping algorithm, it’s a consequence of the (perfectly predictable) fact that papers in the same field cite each other more than papers in other fields.

As you zoom in, the papers become more legible — when a circle becomes big enough, a word or phrase from the title appears, and eventually the author’s name. Here’s one of my papers, a bit standoffish from its surroundings:

You can also search for authors, title words, and so on. Of course the first thing any working physicist will do will search for themselves. Here I am, my life’s work reduced to handy graphical form:

Click for a bigger and more legible version — or just go search yourself, by typing “?a s.m.carroll” into the search box. (Much more fun that way.) The white circles are the search results. Scattered all over the place, to nobody’s surprise; but most of my papers (and definitely the ones with the biggest circles) lie in that mixed-color overlap between gravity/quantum cosmology, astrophysics, high energy formal theory, and high-energy phenomenology. Somewhat zoomed-in:

Very fun in a narcissistic sort of way, but once you’re done ego-surfing I imagine it will also be a useful tool. Hopefully most researchers are already aware of the important papers in their areas of interest, but maybe you can discover some apparently highly-cited work right next to yours that you hadn’t known about. Or, even better, some less-cited work that maybe deserves more attention. Certainly it could be useful to people trying to dive into fields in which they are not yet experts. There are also options to look for recent papers, trending work, and more. Of course there is a blog.

Congratulations to Damien George and Rob Knegjens for such an interesting project. I wonder if they will write a paper about it and post it to arxiv?

Longtime readers know that I’m fascinated by the possibility that dark matter is “interesting.” Of course dark matter is by its very nature interesting, but I’m referring to the idea that the dark matter isn’t simply a single neutral particle with a negligible rate of interaction in the current universe, but rather a set of one or more kinds of particles with some noticeable forces acting between them. Friends of mine and I have investigated the idea of dark photons — dark matter being charged under a new “dark force” resembling ordinary electromagnetism. The next obvious step is dark atoms — two different kinds of charged dark particles that can join together in atom-like bound states. These ideas, it turns out, are fairly compatible with what we know about the dynamics of dark matter in the real universe.

Now a new paper by JiJi Fan, Andrey Katz, Lisa Randall, and Matthew Reece examines the particle physics and astrophysical consequences of a somewhat more elaborate version of this idea, which they call “Partially Interacting Dark Matter.” The idea is that most of the dark matter is vanilla and boring, but some fraction of it is atom-like. This has interesting implications for galaxies and small-scale structure. Here’s the abstract:

Double-Disk Dark Matter
JiJi Fan, Andrey Katz, Lisa Randall, Matthew Reece

Based on observational tests and constraints on halo structure, dark matter is generally taken to be cold and essentially collisionless. On the other hand, given the large number of particles and forces in the visible world, a more complex dark sector could be a reasonable or even likely possibility. This hypothesis leads to testable consequences, perhaps portending the discovery of a rich hidden world neighboring our own. We consider a scenario that readily satisfies current bounds that we call Partially Interacting Dark Matter (PIDM). This scenario contains self-interacting dark matter, but it is not the dominant component. Even if PIDM contains only a fraction of the net dark matter density, comparable to the baryonic fraction, the subdominant component’s interactions can lead to interesting and potentially observable consequences. Our primary focus will be the special case of Double-Disk Dark Matter (DDDM), in which self-interactions allow the dark matter to lose enough energy to lead to dynamics similar to those in the baryonic sector. We explore a simple model in which DDDM can cool efficiently and form a disk within galaxies, and we evaluate some of the possible observational signatures. The most prominent signal of such a scenario could be an enhanced indirect detection signature with a distinctive spatial distribution. Even though subdominant, the enhanced density at the center of the galaxy and possibly throughout the plane of the galaxy can lead to large boost factors, and could even explain a signature as large as the 130 GeV Fermi line. Such scenarios also predict additional dark radiation degrees of freedom that could soon be detectable and would influence the interpretation of future data, such as that from Planck and from the Gaia satellite. We consider this to be the first step toward exploring a rich array of new possibilities for dark matter dynamics.

Most investigations of dark matter indicate that it is spread much more tenuously through the universe than ordinary matter, which tends to clump together. The basic idea is illustrated in this artist’s conception of the dark matter halo associated with our Milky Way galaxy and its Magellanic Cloud satellites. (Update: oops, reading comprehension failure on my part. This is an artist’s conception of hot gas around the Milky Way, not dark matter, as Peter Edmonds pointed out on Twitter. But they look similar!)

There is a straightforward explanation for this behavior: ordinary matter feels the electromagnetic interaction, so atoms can bump into each other and release energy by radiating photons, which lets them “cool” and settle down into relatively dense clumps (like galaxies and even stars). Standard dark matter particles have very weak interactions indeed, so when they fall into a gravitational potential well they just zip through the other side without cooling, giving the dark matter distribution a much puffier profile.

Here Fan et al. are suggesting that part of the dark matter could form atoms and cool, allowing it to clump more efficiently in the centers of galaxies. This could lead to more frequent dark-matter annihilations than we would otherwise expect, which might be suggested by some tantalizing observational results (although that’s fairly tentative).

It’s fun to think about, although we’re far away from drawing any firm conclusions at the moment. But we won’t know how to test these ideas observationally unless we work out their predictions theoretically. It’s a complicated universe, we need to be prepared.

Scientists don’t always agree with each other. Yes, I know; shocking but true. In cases of collegial disagreement, it’s often fun to quantify the extent of opinion by gathering a collection of experts and taking a poll. Inevitably some killjoy will loudly grumble that “scientific questions aren’t decided by voting!”, but that misses the point. A poll of scientists isn’t meant to decide questions, it’s meant to collect data — mapping out the territory of opinion among people who have spent time and effort thinking carefully about the relevant questions.

There’s been a bit of attention given recently to one such poll, carried out by Maximilian Schlosshauer, Johannes Kofler, and Anton Zeilinger at a quantum foundations meeting (see John Preskill at Quantum Frontiers, Swans on Tea). The pollsters asked a variety of questions, many frustratingly vague, which were patiently answered by the 33 participants.

This plot gives the money shot, as they say in Hollywood:

It’s a histogram of the audience’s “favorite” interpretation of quantum mechanics. As we see, among this expert collection of physicists, philosophers, and mathematicians, there is not much of a consensus. A 42% percent plurality votes for the “Copenhagen” interpretation, while the others are scattered over a handful of alternatives.

I’ll go out on a limb to suggest that the results of this poll should be very embarrassing to physicists. Not, I hasten to add, because Copenhagen came in first, although that’s also a perspective I might want to defend (I think Copenhagen is completely ill-defined, and shouldn’t be the favorite anything of any thoughtful person). The embarrassing thing is that we don’t have agreement.

Think about it — quantum mechanics has been around since the 1920’s at least, in a fairly settled form. John von Neumann laid out the mathematical structure in 1932. Subsequently, quantum mechanics has become the most important and best-tested part of modern physics. Without it, nothing makes sense. Every student who gets a degree in physics is supposed to learn QM above all else. There are a variety of experimental probes, all of which confirm the theory to spectacular precision.

And yet — we don’t understand it. Embarrassing. To all of us, as a field (not excepting myself).

I’m sitting in a bistro at the University of Nottingham, where I gave a talk yesterday about quantum mechanics. I put it this way: here in 2013, we don’t really know whether objective “wave function collapse” is part of reality (as the poll above demonstrates). We also don’t know whether, for example, supersymmetry is part of reality. Wave function collapse has been a looming problem for much longer, and is of much wider applicability, than the existence of supersymmetry. Yet the effort that is put into investigating the two questions is extremely disproportionate.

Not that we should be spending as much money trying to pinpoint a correct understanding of quantum mechanics as we do looking for supersymmetry, of course. The appropriate tools are very different. We won’t know whether supersymmetry is real without performing very costly experiments. For quantum mechanics, by contrast, all we really have to do (most people believe) is think about it in the right way. No elaborate experiments necessarily required (although they could help nudge us in the right direction, no doubt about that). But if anything, that makes the embarrassment more acute. All we have to do is wrap our brains around the issue, and yet we’ve failed to do so.

I’m optimistic that we will, however. And I suspect it will take a lot fewer than another eighty years. The advance of experimental techniques that push the quantum/classical boundary is forcing people to take these issues more seriously. I’d like to believe that in the 21st century we’ll finally develop a convincing and believable understanding of the greatest triumph of 20th-century physics.

The South Pole Telescope is a wonderful instrument, a ten-meter radio telescope that has been operating at the South Pole since 2007. Its primary target is the cosmic microwave background (CMB), but a lot of the science comes from observations of the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect due clusters of galaxies — a distortion of the frequency of CMB photons as they travel through the hot gas of the cluster. We learn a lot about galaxy clusters this way, and as a bonus we have a great way of looking for small-scale structure in the CMB itself.

Now the collaboration has released new results on using SPT observations to constrain cosmological parameters.

A Measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background Damping Tail from the 2500-square-degree SPT-SZ survey
K. T. Story, C. L. Reichardt, Z. Hou, R. Keisler, et al.

We present a measurement of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature power spectrum using data from the recently completed South Pole Telescope Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (SPT-SZ) survey. This measurement is made from observations of 2540 deg^2 of sky with arcminute resolution at 150 GHz, and improves upon previous measurements using the SPT by tripling the sky area. We report CMB temperature anisotropy power over the multipole range 650<ell<3000. We fit the SPT bandpowers, combined with the results from the seven-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP7) data release, with a six-parameter LCDM cosmological model and find that the two datasets are consistent and well fit by the model. Adding SPT measurements significantly improves LCDM parameter constraints, and in particular tightens the constraint on the angular sound horizon theta_s by a factor of 2.7…[abridged]

Here is the first plot anyone should look for in a paper like this: …

South Pole Telescope and CMB ConstraintsRead More »

Tom Banks has long been skeptical of the popular picture of the string theory landscape — the idea that there is some extremely large (10⁵⁰⁰ or more) number of phases of string theory, representing different ways to compactify the extra dimensions, and that all these phases are dynamically connected to each other, possibly by cosmological transitions during eternal inflation. Tom’s reasons aren’t of the curmudgeonly you-kids-get-off-my-lawn sort, but arise from his views about how quantum gravity works. (He thinks different cosmological boundary conditions represent truly different quantum theories, not just different regions of one big spacetime.) Well worth considering, if only because it’s too easy to run off in the direction of conventional wisdom when you’re far away from the realm of experimental testing.

The Top 10⁵⁰⁰ Reasons Not to Believe in the Landscape

T. Banks

The String Landscape is a fantasy. We actually have a plausible landscape of minimally supersymmetric $AdS_4$ solutions of supergravity modified by an exponential superpotential. None of these solutions is accessible to world sheet perturbation theory. If they exist as models of quantum gravity, they are defined by conformal field theories, and each is an independent quantum system, which makes no transitions to any of the others. This landscape has nothing to do with CDL tunneling or eternal inflation.

A proper understanding of CDL transitions in QFT on a fixed background dS space, shows that the EI picture of this system is not justified within the approximation of low energy effective field theory. The cutoff independent physics, defined by the Euclidean functional integral over the 4-sphere admits only a finite number of instantons. Plausible extensions of these ideas to a quantum theory of gravity obeying the holographic principle explain all of the actual facts about CDL transitions in dS space, and lead to a picture radically different from eternal inflation.

Theories of Eternal Inflation (EI) have to rely too heavily on the anthropic principle to be consistent with experiment. Given the vast array of effective low energy field theories that could be produced by the conventional picture of the string landscape one is forced to conclude that the most numerous anthropically allowed theories will disagree with experiment violently.