LHC Update

Yesterday the LHC Hardware Commissioning Coordination Team announced the end of the 2009 Hardware Commissioning Campaign as all 8 LHC sectors were declared commissioned and ready for beam. A two day checkout period is now underway, which should have the LHC ready for beam at 17:00 Friday. Friday evening and night should see beams threaded around the machine in both directions. Saturday the plan is to capture a circulating beam in one direction, Sunday in the other direction. Celebratory drinks are scheduled for 17:00 Monday in the CERN Control Center.

Update: Up-to-date news about beam commissioning is here, and hopefully CERN won’t shut off outside access to it. Normally I try and avoid providing links that might be in danger of becoming non-public, but in this case, since the New York Times is linking to this, I suppose I should too.

Update: The LHC Portal is a site with a lot of links to CERN information. For more about the site, see here.

Update: Beam is in the LHC and has made it part way around, to IP3. One place to follow progress is here.

Just as I finished writing that, I see it’s now at IP5.

Update: After a short stop to recover from a magnet quench, the beam has now gone all the way around the ring, making two turns.

Posted in Experimental HEP News | 5 Comments

A Brilliant Darkness

Joao Magueijo has a new book out about Ettore Majorana, entitled A Brilliant Darkness. It’s a lot of fun to read, and could be described as an example of Gonzo history of science. While it contains a lot of factual information, much of which I was unaware of, it’s probably best to think of it like the works of Hunter S. Thompson. Not a good place to go for authoritatively accurate information about, e.g., Las Vegas or the 1972 US Presidential campaign, but a highly personal investigation that manages to get to the heart of the matter, finding emotional if not literal truth.

For some examples, here’s Magueijo on Majorana’s upbringing:

Jokes and pranks aside, one should not get the impression that Ettore’s youth was a happy one. It was dire. Between the priests and his parents, his basic humanity was destroyed. He was brought up by social outcasts and grew monstrously distorted, lacking social skills and independence, full of ineptitude. People like him — when they don’t become criminals, drug addicts or psychopaths — can’t help being intellectually superior. But they’re “Frankensteins,” artificially gifted, clever “against nature.” And like the literary monstor, behind the bestial genius lies a very different nature: tender in a way that can never be fully realized; longing for love, knowing full well that it will always be denied; a furnace of kind emotions that the ogre exterior will always screen.

and here’s his account of his own trip on the ferry where Majorana presumably killed himself in 1938 at the age of 31:

Back on deck, I realize what a gloomy figure I must cut: pensive and stark, staring at the sea. Maybe the insomniac brigade is worried I might be contemplating suicide. A girl comes out to smoke and waits to be chatted up. I move to the rear. What a sad bastard I must look, refusing to play the game of life, shouting and fucking, throwing up against the wind. I watch the wake for a long time, the cigarette butts flying past me into the night, like fireflies from Mars. In our world of the “normal”, anyone who thinks is likely to appear suicidal. And yet, suicide or not, we will all be there one day, not just Ettore. We are all the same, only in different seasons.

Majorana was born in 1906 in Sicily, went to Rome for his studies. His career as a physicist basically spanned just the years 1928-1933, much of which was spent working in Fermi’s famous group in Rome. For Magueijo, Fermi is one of the villains of the piece, with Majorana a genius much his superior. Unlike the rest of the group, Majorana wasn’t interested in experimental work, nor much interested in publishing his ideas, about which Magueijo claims:

That’s how he never got credit for Heisenberg’s theory of nuclear forces and the neutron, the Weisskopf-Pauli second quantization of the complex scalar field, or the parity-violating properties of the neutrino, which earned Tsung Dao Lee and Chen Ning Yang the Nobel Prize some thirty years later. They could all have been named after Majorana. But because he never published his work, only the Majorana neutrino — his inseparable soul mate — carries Ettore’s name today.

In 1933 Majorana traveled to Leipzig to work with Heisenberg, then to Copenhagen to work with Bohr. When he returned to Rome, some combination of physical and mental health problems led him to become a recluse for several years. He emerged from this state in 1937 to take up a professorship in Naples, but a few months later disappeared after embarking on a ferry taking him from Palermo back to Naples.

Majorana’s most important scientific work appeared in a 1932 Nuovo Cimento paper motivated by the desire to find a replacement for the Dirac equation that would solve the problem of its negative energy states (a problem which disappeared in 1932 with the discovery of the positron). In this paper, Majorana investigated for the first time infinite dimensional representations of the Lorentz group, ones whose role in physics, if any, remains mysterious. As part of this work, he discovered the possibility of a real representation of the Clifford algebra and thus a version of the Dirac equation in which a particle is its own anti-particle. Whether this possibility is realized in the case of neutrinos is one of the big open questions of the subject. We know that there must be neutrino mass terms, but we don’t know if they’re of Majorana or Dirac form.

[Note added: There are actually two papers here, both of which appear to have been completed in 1932, but the second one was only published in 1937, when Majorana was applying for the professorship in Naples. The 1932 paper is concerned with his infinite component wave equation. It’s only in the 1937 paper that the real representation of the gamma-matrices and what is now known as the “Majorana neutrino” make their appearance.]

Magueijo does a good job of describing this important physics at a popular level. He also gives a lot of space to the various myths that have grown up around the story of Majorana’s disappearance. There’s a whole subculture out there devoted to them. He wisely decides not to sign on to any of these or create his own, concluding:

And as with the neutrino, Ettore’s story is also elusive. Even if we found out for sure what actually happened to him, we’d never know why he did it — which is far more important. This absence of a final truth shouldn’t sadden us: At leas we don’t harbor delusions of omniscience. When I got on that plane to Sicily, I promised myself only this: I won’t raise my leg and urinate over my little territory in Ettoreland; I won’t invent a solution that is not needed.

Posted in Book Reviews | 11 Comments

On the Defensive

There’s another article here about Michael Green succeeding Hawking as Lucasian chair. It emphasizes the idea that this is all about more funding for string theory:

MICHAEL Green, the 18th holder of Cambridge University’s Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics, is clearly a man with weighty issues on his mind.

He apologetically darts out of our meeting to speak to a colleague about how to submit the paperwork for a 1.5 million euros (£1.35 million) grant application he has just heard has been approved by the European Union.

“I suppose it sounds like a lot of money,” he explains, “but it’s not that much really compared to the billions spent on some research. Our work is theoretical – we’re very cheap.”

The money will go towards research on Michael’s specialist subject, string theory…

“I have been thinking about how I can make use of such a prominent position to benefit my colleagues. It is difficult to find funding at the moment, especially for subjects which don’t obviously have an immediate application for something that will make money.

“But the people who discovered magnetism and electricity had no idea what they could be used for. The MRI scanner wouldn’t exist without particle physics. There are so many spin-off industrial investments in things that are being researched, and we need more of this.”

Another blogger has the following comments about this:

There’s only so far that one can run away with this. People “…who discovered magnetism and electricity…” had, in their corner, empirical evidence to at least tell them if they are on the right path or not. This is where the analogy to pursuing String Theory breaks down and the similarity ends. I don’t believe that there has been, in the history of physics, a study in a field of physics that has gone for so long, and garnered THIS much attention, that has been totally devoid of any empirical evidence which indicates one way or the other that it is on a right path. For many of us who value physics as being guided by empirical evidence, this is the most troubling aspect of String theory.

To be fair, Green notes that it’s not all about cashing in for himself and his colleagues, that he would also like to finally have some success with the science:

But, ever the academic, Michael’s eyes twinkle as he admits his “pie in the sky” dream for his tenure of the Lucasian Professorship is not about money, but a breakthrough in the application of his beloved string theory.

“We need something which at the moment doesn’t seem to be a fundamental phenomenon,” he explains. “To find something we know already, but find an undetected explanation out of string theory. It is a radically new theory; what it needs is a radical new prediction.”

I’m not sure though that describing a nearly forty year old theory as “radically new” is really accurate. Any sort of prediction would be radically new.

Also in the business of defending string theory is Sean Carroll, who has a video and transcript up on the Edge web-site on the topic of “Why does the Universe look the way it does?”. It’s unclear to me what this has to do with the topic, but for some reason much of the talk is taken up with a defense of string theory. It’s the usual misleading hype, at great length, leading up to a peculiar defense of the idea that even once you have shown that a speculative theoretical idea is vacuous and can give you anything that you want, you should keep studying it anyway:

How do you show that a theory is not right if you can get anything from it? My answer to that is we just don’t know yet. But that does not imply that we will never know.

From here it’s on to the multiverse and his idea that it explains why you can’t unscramble an egg, and that one is doing observational cosmology over breakfast:

The reason we find a direction in time here in this room or in the kitchen when you scramble an egg or mix milk into coffee is not because we live in the physical vicinity of some important object, but because we live in the aftermath of some influential event, and that event is the Big Bang. The Big Bang set all of the clocks in the world. When we go down to how we evolve, why we are born and then die, and never in the opposite order, why we remember what happened yesterday and we don’t remember what is going to happen tomorrow, all of these manifestations of the difference between the past and the future are all coming from the same source. That source is the low entropy of the Big Bang…

I like to say that observational cosmology is the cheapest possible science to go into. Every time you put milk into your coffee and watch it mix and realize that you can’t unmix that milk from your coffee, you are learning something profound about the Big Bang, about conditions in the very, very early universe. This is just a giant clue that the real universe has given to us to how the fundamental laws of physics work. We don’t yet know how to put that clue to work. We don’t know the answer to the who done it, who is the guilty party, why the universe is like that. But taking this question seriously is a huge step forward in trying to understand how the universe that we see around us directly fits into a much bigger picture.

Update: Carroll this week will be on a lecture tour in Australia giving talks on the Big Bang/egg unscrambling business. The first will be in Sydney where the “internationally-renowned theoretical physicist” will give the 2009 Templeton Lecture.

Posted in This Week's Hype | 16 Comments

A Line on String Theory

According to the Harvard Gazette, it seems that string theory predicts a very distinctive experimental signature that should be easily observable at the LHC. The claim is that string theory predicts that the LHC should produce stau particles, with a lifetime of a minute or so. I’m no experimentalist, but I’d think a charged particle with no strong interactions, a mass of many hundreds of GeV, and long-lived enough to go all the way through the detector, should stick out like a sore thumb. This might be the kind of thing you only need one of to claim discovery of a new particle, and could even be expected to show up very early after the LHC is turned on.

So, at least if you believe the Harvard Gazette, we may be only a few weeks away from having an experimental result that will settle the string theory question once and for all. Either Vafa and collaborators will be getting the 2010 (or 2011 at the worst) Nobel prize, or string theory’s prediction will have been wrong and we can say goodbye to the theory for good. Next year should be exciting…

Update: Some commenters were pessimistic that the first year LHC would produce these supposed staus at an observable rate. If I read this presentation correctly (page 54), only 40 inverse pb are needed to produce 3 events of a 200Gev stau. Maybe this model will get verified or killed during 2010. From the same conference, see Michael Peskin’s summary talk for more about what the LHC might see in 2010.

Posted in This Week's Hype | 27 Comments

Witten on J Street

The latest New York Review of Books (December 3 issue, not yet online) contains an article by Edward Witten entitled “The New J-Lobby for Peace”. It’s about J Street, an organization set up last year to lobby in Washington in favor of Middle East peace. Witten is on the organization’s advisory board. For more about his views on J Street from last year, see this article.

At the moment, he’s both hopeful that J Street will start to have an effect, and fearful that it might be too late, writing:

The rise of J Street gives strong promise that Jews with a more liberal outlook on the Israeli-Palestinian problem will now have a voice in the American political system.

The real question about J Street may be not whether it will grow but whether it is simply too late. Numerous trends, including the spread of Israeli settlements, the increase of the Palestinian population, the rise of Hamas, and growing Orthodox influence in Israel, may be putting a two-state solution out of reach.

Witten has been involved in this issue for a long time, on the board of Americans for Peace Now since 1991. It’s great to see such a prominent member of the physics/math community standing up on this issue, and encouraging that he sees something positive happening. I share his hopes for J Street, as well as his fears that it may be too late.

Sorry, but I’m not allowing comments on this posting. While I think this is a very important issue and wanted to make people aware of Witten’s article, I don’t want to host political discussions on this blog, especially on this topic.

Update: The Witten article is now available on-line here.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

In SUSY We Trust

New Scientist has an article in the latest issue entitled In SUSY we trust: What the LHC is really looking for, which promotes the idea that the LHC is going to discover supersymmetry. Only supersymmetry enthusiasts are quoted. I’d be curious to see some data on what the distribution of views of particle theorists is on this issue (one piece of evidence that supersymmetry skepticism is in the majority is here). Among bloggers, at one end of the spectrum is Sean Carroll, who gives a probability of 60%, at the other is Resonaances, with 0.1%. Personally, I’m with Resonaances, at least as far as conventional supersymmetric models go. The main arguments against supersymmetry, ignored in New Scientist, are that supersymmetry breaking is both necessary and hideously ugly, and if this was going to solve the hierarchy problem, we’d have seen evidence already at the Tevatron.

The article does a good job of recounting the pro-supersymmetry arguments (hierarchy problem, unification of couplings, dark matter candidate), but then goes completely off the rails with an absurd claim that supersymmetry explains confinement:

Supersymmetry’s scope does not end there. As Seiberg and his Princeton colleague Edward Witten have shown, the theory can also explain why quarks are never seen on their own, but are always corralled together by the strong force into larger particles such as protons and neutrons. In the standard model, there is no mathematical indication why that should be; with supersymmetry, it drops out of the equations naturally.

At least we’ll know one way or another within a few years from now…

Posted in Uncategorized | 19 Comments

Simons Postdoctoral Fellowships

The Simons Foundation will be funding new postdoctoral positions at various institutions starting next fall. Details of one of these, at the University of Texas, have been announced, with more to follow in coming weeks. These are three-year postdocs, with a first-year salary of $70K/year.

Posted in Uncategorized | 40 Comments

News From NSF THY

A presentation at a recent SLAC Users Group meeting included some of the following data about NSF support for HEP theory:

Theory funding (including cosmology and astro-particle physics) for FY 2008: \$11.68 million. For FY 2009, \$11.31 million + \$2.3 million from the stimulus legislation.

In FY 2008, these grants supported 128 senior personnel, 84 postdocs and 104 graduate students. For FY 2009 the numbers were 184 senior personnel, 50 postdocs and 70 graduate students.

During FY 2008, 24 out of 57 new submitted proposals were funded, 17 out 21 renewals were funded.

Group grants were categorized as 11 phenomenology, 11 strings, 2 cosmology, 1 general.

Individual grants were categorized as 17 cosmology, 12 strings, 9 phenomenology, 3 astrophysics, 2 lattice QCD, 3 general.

So, as far as NSF HEP grants go these days, if you’re not doing cosmology, string theory, or phenomenology, basically you’re out of luck…

NSF THY has a new program manager who started Oct. 1. It’s Keith Dienes of the University of Arizona, whose research in recent years has focused on the “string vacuum project”. He’ll be giving a colloquium at Fermilab next month on Probing the String Landscape, which is advertised with the abstract:

We are currently in the throes of a potentially huge paradigm shift in physics. Motivated by recent developments in string theory and the discovery of the so-called “string landscape”, physicists are beginning to question the uniqueness of fundamental theories of physics and the methods by which such theories might be understood and investigated.

Since the late eighties, the two institutions in the US most heavily invested in string theory have been Princeton and Rutgers. Recently they have been moving aggressively to try and diversify, especially in the direction of LHC phenomenology, with the hiring of Nima Arkani-Hamed at the IAS and Matt Strassler at Rutgers. Last year the two institutions collaborated on a proposal for a new Physics Frontier Center with a budget of \$1 million or so per year. This would be called the PARTICLE Center (Princeton And Rutgers Theory Institute for Collaboration with LHC Experiments) and would aim to be the main US center for LHC phenomenology. The proposal promoted the possibility of experimental anomalies to be discovered by the LHC in fall 2009, quickly followed by PARTICLE physicists inventing a model that would explain the data and predict a subtle effect that would require a new triggering strategy to see. The result of this would be a surprising measurement that would explain supersymmetry breaking.

Anyway, that proposal doesn’t appear to have been funded, with reviewers rather dubious about the idea of retraining Princeton and Rutgers string theorists as LHC phenomenologists, as well as the idea of devoting significant new resources to funding the Princeton and Rutgers theory groups, centralizing LHC phenomenology efforts there. However, two new year-long grants for \$130,000 each were awarded to Strassler and Arkani-Hamed, who promise to use them to “create the nucleus of an LHC center on the East Coast” at Princeton and Rutgers. One of the goals of these grants is listed as “to help in the process of … retraining postdocs from more formal areas of high-energy theory”, since the job market for young string theorists has more or less collapsed.

Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments

Latest from the LHC

The latest official news from CERN about the LHC schedule that I’ve seen is this from DG Rolf Heuer, who doesn’t give specific dates other than “second half of November” for circulating beams, collisions at injection energy soon thereafter, and, if all goes well, “high-energy collisions” before Christmas. He doesn’t specify what the value of “high-energy” is.

Physics Today has this story, which has a lot more detail than available officially, including a quote described as “a statement on the CERN web-site”:

This means that 2009 will not see physics collisions, but will perhaps see collisions at energies marginally higher than that of the Tevatron…

which was picked up by the New York Times here, and reported as:

The lab now says the first collisions, before Christmas, will be even lower, due to delays in finishing a system to protect the powerful superconducting magnets from explosive failures. The initial collisions will be at 1.1 trillion electron volts per beam, just barely above the energy of the Tevatron collider now running at CERN’s rival, the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory outside Chicago.

I can’t find that quote on any CERN site, but it and the other details of the story do seem awfully familiar.

Unofficially, what’s known about the schedule at the moment is:

Next weekend (Nov. 7-8): Second injection test. If sector 67 is ready, beam will travel through this sector (and possibly even through sector 56) as well as the two (sectors 23 and 78) tested during the first injection test.

November 20th: First attempt to circulate beams at the injection energy of 450 GeV.

Early December: Collisions at 450 GeV.

Mid-December: Ramp to 1.1 TeV, collisions at 1.1 TeV/beam.

December 16th: Stop of beam commissioning for end-of-year break.

January 4: Restart after end-of-year break. About three weeks for hardware commissioning to 6kA, 3.5 TeV/beam.

Late January: Beam commissioning at 3.5 TeV/beam.

Early February: Collisions at 3.5 TeV/beam. First physics run soon thereafter.

Update: Not sure what to make of this. At first I found this hard to believe, but there’s another story here.

Update: I guess this actually happened: here’s something from CERN.

Update: Looks like they will be able to get a beam through 4 of the LHC’s 8 sectors this weekend.

Commenter Yatima points to this at the Register. If you believe the Register (not necessarily a good idea…), CERN’s Sergio Bertolucci is promoting the idea that the LHC will open a portal to other dimensions, so:

Summarising, then, it appears that we might be in for some kind of invasion by spontaneously swelling and shrinking spherical or wheel-shaped creatures – something on the order of the huge rumbling stone ball from Indiana Jones – able to move in and out of our plane at will. Soon the cities of humanity will lie in smoking ruins, shattered by the Attack of the Teleporting Juggernaut-tyrants from the Nth Dimension.

The writer asks LHC Machine Coordinator Mike Lamont what he thinks of all this. He suggests reading Lisa Randall’s book.

Posted in Experimental HEP News | 12 Comments

Perfect Rigor

I just finished reading author Masha Gessen’s new book about Grigori Perelman, Perfect Rigor: A Genius and the Mathematical Breakthrough of the Century. It’s a short but very well done account of the life of Grigori Perelman, how he came to prove the Poincare Conjecture, and what has transpired since.

The book is really not about mathematics, but about mathematicians and their culture, especially that of Russian mathematicians. Only one chapter deals with the mathematical content of the Poincare Conjecture, with the bulk of the book about Perelman and his career. Perelman’s talent’s were recognized early, and were nurtured in Leningrad by a system designed to train students for mathematical competitions. He won a gold medal at the International Mathematical Olympiad in 1982. The institutionalized anti-Semitism of the Soviet mathematics establishment of this period is described in detail in the book, together with the intense efforts made by Perelman’s supporters (including Alexandrov) to overcome this. He did his graduate work at the most prestigious institution in Leningrad, and then went on to a research position there at the Steklov Institute.

Gessen never managed to interview Perelman himself, but did talk to many if not most of the mathematicians he interacted with. He was brought to Courant by the intervention of Gromov, and for a few years worked there, at Stony Brook and at Berkeley. By the end of this time, he had started to develop a significant reputation in the math community, but he chose to return to Steklov and pretty much dropped out of sight, communicating with very few people for several years. It was during this period that he developed his proof, finally posting what could be described as a detailed outline in a series of three papers submitted to the arXiv.

The story of what happened then is rather remarkable, but it’s a story I’m pretty familiar with since I got to watch much of it from up close (Perelman’s preprints and the question of whether he really had a proof were discussed intensively here at Columbia, where Richard Hamilton and John Morgan are among my colleagues, and quite a few other people work in this area). Gessen does a good job of telling this story, adding some details I was unaware of.

Perelman turned down the Fields medal awarded him for this work, and sadly, he seems in recent years to have cut himself off from even his closest friends in the math community. Indications are that he is no longer actively working on research mathematics. The book contains speculation from several mathematicians who know Perelman about his thought processes and the reasons for his behavior, but they remain somewhat of a mystery. Some amount of paranoia seems to be at work, together with an intense distaste for any sort of politics, even the most innocuous workings of the mathematical community and its institutions.

The last chapter of the book has some news I hadn’t heard. Last year, Jim Carlson, who runs the Clay Mathematics Institute and is responsible for the process that will determine the award of the million-dollar Millennium prize for the proof of Poincare, traveled to St. Petersburg. He talked to Perelman on the phone, but Perelman refused to meet with him. According to the book, Clay was planning on convening a committee to decide on the prize this past May, with a report planned for August. Presumably this all has already happened by now, and perhaps Carlson has already made another trip to St. Petersburg in a last attempt to see if Perelman can be convinced to accept the prize. Perhaps we will be finding out the results soon…

Update: Today’s Wall Street Journal has an article by Gessen about Russian mathematics that summarizes part of her book.

Posted in Book Reviews | 28 Comments