New York, New York

Another topic I hope to write about extensively is that of New York City, including discussing the wide range of cultural events going on, as well as the amazing restaurants. On the subject of food, I should give a plug for my friend Nathan Myhrvold’s new book Modernist Cuisine. It’s been getting rave reviews, and the first printing has sold out. I’ve been promised a copy from the second printing, and Nathan tells me that, “while it’s not a coffee-table book, you could use it as a coffee table…” I’ll report once the book arrives.

I’ve been in and out of New York City since the earliest times I can remember, which were in a suburb 25 miles north. My mother was born here and my father came here by himself as a 17-year old after the war. The place has changed quite a bit over the years, and some of the changes of the past few years are quite remarkable. These days, most of Manhattan is filled with new or renovated architecture, everything fixed up to a high level of gloss, and virtually crime-free. With one bedroom apartments going for a million dollars in many neighborhoods, if you trip on your shoelace you’re likely to take down a couple millionaires. These people are not going to mug you, and any outsiders who might think of this are deterred by the intense police presence, especially since 9/11. The only exception is bicycle theft, which is rampant, and doesn’t much interest the police. Last summer I came out of a store on Broadway mid Sunday afternoon to find a group of guys with bolt cutters freeing my bicycle from its chains. No one seemed to find their activities unusual or worth doing anything about.

Back in the 1980s there was a lot of talk of “gentrification”, as poor people were displaced by well-educated young middle-class people. These days a new word is needed to describe what is going on, perhaps “plutocracification”. Someone who lives in Tribeca described to me how 20 years ago the neighborhood changed as lawyers and doctors moved in, and artists moved out. Nowadays, the lawyers and doctors are getting pushed out as the hedge-funders and investment bankers arrive. It’s hard to overstate the effect of the financial industry in Manhattan, where supposedly it provides half the personal income, with much of the rest of the economy based on catering to this new wealth. Bank branches are everywhere, often taking up four corners of an intersection, with long swathes of expensive commercial street frontage devoted to cubicles for not very well-paid bank employees, most of which are normally empty.

In late 2008, there was a blip there for a moment, and I even saw one bank branch get closed. That didn’t last long though: apartments are selling again at high prices, new bank branches are opening, and you can’t get a reservation at a long list of popular expensive restaurants. Midtown streets are impassible, filled with fleets of massive black SUVs, their bullet-proof windows tinted dark. Used to be that the rich favored limos, but no longer. No one knows how long this will last, but the city is partying like it’s 2011. Huge cuts to the budgets for schools and the city university system have just been announced, but most Manhattanites are unconcerned, since they would never have their children educated in public institutions.

One side effect of having a lot of rich people from many different countries is that the restaurants in Manhattan tend to be spectacularly good. Some are trendy and rather expensive, but for not a ridiculous amount of money you can get a fantastic meal, and you have to go out of your way to find a bad one. I’ll be writing extensively about some of my culinary obsessions, one of which is barbecue. At this point I might argue that New York has better barbecue than just about anywhere else in the world. Just down the street from here (108th and Broadway), Rack and Soul has some of the best ribs I’ve ever eaten. On 26th St., Hill Country has taken the best sausage and brisket available in Texas (Kreutz’s in Lockhart), stolen it and brought it here to the city. Over in Williamsburg, you can get great barbecue with the best pork and beans I’ve ever seen at Fette Sau. The list goes on and on….

Recently opened near here just off 125th St. is Marcus Samuelson’s Red Rooster Harlem, where I recently had a wonderful lunch. Getting a dinner reservation is not easy, and some days the restaurant is packed with the power elite. Last week Obama took over the place for a $31,000/head dinner with his friends from the hedge funds. Here’s the menu. This is a typical story of the new New York. In what used to be pretty much a slum, now there’s a beautiful restaurant with some of the world’s best food. The wealthy may sometimes monopolize it, but if you’re a New Yorker and play your cards right, you too can participate in the fun and get a fantastic meal in a gorgeous place, at a not unreasonable price.

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Obama Worse Than Bush

I voted for Obama in the Democratic primary, because I figured Hillary Clinton was more likely to expand the war in Afghanistan and otherwise engage in the sort of misguided military adventure favored by the shrub. Look what happened. He appointed Clinton Secretary of State, and then sent even more troops into Afghanistan than Bush Jr. would have dared consider. Don’t even get me started about his Mideast policy and spineless cave-in on Israeli settlements. Remember Guantanamo? He’s commander-in-chief, could shut this illegal abomination down whenever he wants to, instead he intends to keep it open indefinitely. Again, W would have closed the place by now and moved on. The fact that Obama was given a Nobel Peace Prize is some sort of sick joke.

On the domestic front, let’s face it: Obama has been a disaster for the country, moving it farther to the right than it has been at any time since perhaps a period of a few years sometime back in the 19th century. He has pursued policies more or less in line with those of Bush, confusing and neutering moderates and progressives (who don’t dare criticize him). Based on his inspiring speeches, they thought they had elected a community organizer, but are slowly realizing that they’ve been had, with the White House now in the hands of a Bush clone interested not in fighting powerful interests but in playing golf with them. By doing this, he has pushed the Republican opposition so far to the right that they’ve descended into lunacy, and ensured that he’ll should have no trouble winning re-election in 2012. The only threat to him is that of the rise of a populist/fascist movement, motivated by blind hatred and the (accurate) feeling that they are being driven into poverty by a ruthless Ivy-league-educated establishment with a lock on the political and financial system of the country. At the Harvard Club in midtown there’s a huge new portrait of him set in a prominent place as you enter the building. The establishment lawyers and financial types who congregate there know that he’s their man.

The military budget is now significantly higher than during the Bush years, and taxes on the wealthy even lower (taxes on large estates are lower than under Bush). While Bush expanded Medicare significantly to cover prescription drugs, Obama’s health plan was written in partnership with those responsible for the problem (high costs): doctors, insurance and pharmaceutical companies. The great innovation seems to be to expand access to medical care by forcing people who can’t afford it to buy insurance from rapacious insurance companies. Obama’s choice for Fed Chairman: same guy as the one Bush had running his Council of Economic Advisers, before moving on to the Fed and presiding over the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. If there’s any difference between Obama’s treasury secretary (Geithner) and Bush’s (Paulson), I’m unable to see it and haven’t met anyone who can. Geithner is now in charge of gutting the few minor reforms that were passed in the aftermath of the crisis, while institutionalizing a system of government backing for too-big-to-fail financial firms of sizes expanded since the Bush years. The organized looting of these firms by their employees that brought on the mess of 2008 is now back in full-swing.

Next year’s presidential campaign is predicted to cost a billion dollars, which Obama has already started raising from the financial industry and other interest groups. He faces no progressive or moderate opposition at all, with the only question to be resolved that of exactly how extreme his Republican opponent will be. I’ll be covering all this here on the blog, but on days when I don’t get around to giving you my thoughts on what is happening, two other places you might want to consult are FireDogLake and Naked Capitalism

Posted in Uncategorized | 59 Comments

Change of Direction

It probably won’t surprise my regular readers to hear that recently I’ve been getting rather tired of the usual topics of this blog. String theory has been intellectually dead for a very long time now, and continuing to point this out is becoming more and more tedious. About the multiverse, surely no one takes that seriously anymore, so, the less said, the better. Recently, John Baez decided to move away from abstract mathematical physics to write about topics of more relevance to the real world, see his blog Azimuth. Like him, I think it’s time to move on to subjects of wider interest. In the past I’ve very much restricted the topics I write about on this blog, but now have decided that I should share my views on a wide array of topics not just with my friends and colleagues, but with the wider world. This blog will be one way of doing this, but in the next days and weeks I’ll also be entering the world of Web 2.0 in a big way. There’s now a twitter feed, with much more to come.

As part of this new order, I intend to stop my previous somewhat fascist policy of deleting a large fraction of comments on various ill-defined grounds. I now encourage interaction with my readers, feel free to write about whatever’s on your mind!

Posted in Uncategorized | 22 Comments

Things That Deserve (but won’t get) Longer Blog Postings

Here’s a selection of news that deserves longer blog postings that, for one reason or another, I’m unable or unwilling to provide…

  • This year’s Abel Prize goes to John Milnor. With an excellent blog posting about this from Fields Medalist Tim Gowers, why should I try and compete?
  • I’ve been waiting for the US budget situation to clarify before writing about its implications for physics and math research, but it looks like that isn’t going to happen anytime soon. The US Congress is now engaged in a bizarre and irresponsible exercise of trying to run the country by each week fighting over not next year’s budget, not next quarter’s, not next month’s, but next week’s. At the moment there’s a budget for the next week and a half, but no one seems to know what will happen after this. The president has issued a proposed FY2012 budget, but there’s no reason to believe it will have anything to do with whatever the reality of funding later this year turns out to be. Trying to make plans and run a large laboratory like Fermilab under these conditions must be a nightmare. Last week there was a HEPAP meeting in Washington, with presentations that explain the current situation. A good excuse for not writing more about the future implications of federal funding decisions is that no one is actually making such decisions.
  • Last week Langlands supposedly gave a talk at the IAS, On Functoriality; on the Correspondence; and on Their Relation, Part I (I’m not sure if or when there will be a Part II). I wasn’t able to attend, but perhaps video will someday be available. Langlands provides a link to a document of “work in progress” entitled Functoriality and Reciprocity. In it, he gives his reflections on the current state of attempts to precisely formulate and understand the conjectures generally referred to as “Langlands functoriality” and the “Langlands Correspondence” (or “Langlands reciprocity”). These conjectures come in versions for algebraic number fields, function fields, and so-called “geometric Langlands” over the complex numbers, in each case in local and global versions.

    Much of the document consists of Langland’s description of his struggle to understand some issues in the geometric Langlands story, including the work of Witten and collaborators relating this to 4 and 6d quantum field theories. Another topic is that of the Abelian theory, and attempts to understand it locally. A very good reason to not write more about this is that I don’t understand it very well, although, paradoxically, I find Langlands writing about what confuses him rather easier to follow than when he writes about what he has completely understood. Another good reason is that I’m busily learning more about some of this, and maybe someday I’ll be less confused and able to write something more sensible here.

  • Also from the IAS, there’s video of a talk by Arkani-Hamed to the mathematicians available here, about work on scattering amplitudes. I’m curious to know what they made of it.
  • Also on the Langlands front, again in a category of things I don’t understand well enough to write more about, see this new Seminaire Bourbaki report on the Fundamental Lemma from Thomas Hales.
  • Update: There’s a Newsday story about Milnor here, unfortunately only the first bit is free. He explains what he is going to do with the million bucks: buy more leg-room on airplane flights (he’s 6’3″).

    Posted in Experimental HEP News, Langlands, Uncategorized | 9 Comments

    This Week’s Hype II

    LHC-related hype is coming fast and furious this week during my vacation, with Vanderbilt University yesterday issuing a press release headlined Large Hadron Collider could be world’s first time machine. It’s based on this paper, and the Vanderbilt press release explains:

    Weiler and Ho’s theory is based on M-theory, a “theory of everything.”

    The press release has been picked up by lots of other media outlets, including CBS News and UPI.

    It’s rather impressive that these tests of M-theory at the LHC will not only provide evidence for other universes, but allow time travel in this one.

    Posted in This Week's Hype | 49 Comments

    This Week’s Hype

    The LHC is back in business, producing stable colliding beams for the first time this year, although still with a small number of bunches and thus a low luminosity. The number of bunches and luminosity will increase over the next couple weeks.

    Reuters explains the significance of this, based on quotes from CERN scientists: they expect to find evidence of the multiverse as predicted in Stephen Hawking and Brian Greene’s books.

    Oliver Buchmueller, a leading physicist on the $10 billion project, said top priority in 2011 and 2012 would be finding evidence of super-symmetry, extra dimensions, dark matter, black hole production and the elusive Higgs boson.

    These concepts and ideas are at the new frontiers of science research as it pushes into the realms of what was once science fiction, giving a new impulse to cosmology and theorizing on whether the known universe is alone, or one of many.

    Cosmologists, like Briton Steven Hawking and U.S. physicist and mathematician Brian Greene, are looking to the LHC to turn up at least strong signs that there was another universe before the Big Bang or that others exist in parallel to our own

    There’s no word on exactly how LHC data is going to provide evidence for the multiverse, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

    Posted in Experimental HEP News, This Week's Hype | 22 Comments

    Short Items

  • There’s a wonderful interview at the Notices with last year’s Abel Prize winner John Tate (video here). He blames the fact that his name is on so many mathematical results and concepts on Serge Lang. The 2011 Abel Prize winner will be announced on March 23rd.
  • Sir Michael Atiyah’s February 1 talk at the College de France titled A Geometer Explores the Universe is now on-line.
  • Through the intervention of mathoverflow.net, Barry Mazur managed to retrieve a copy of his 1963/64 unpublished paper that first promoted the idea of an analogy between prime numbers and knots in a 3d space.

    In 1963 or 1964 I wrote an article Remarks on the Alexander Polynomial [PDF]) about the analogy between knots in the three-dimensional sphere and prime numbers (and, correspondingly, the relationship between the Alexander polynomial and Iwasawa Theory). I distributed some copies of my article but never published it, and I misplaced my own copy. In subsequent years I have had many requests for my article and would often try to search through my files to find it, but never did. A few weeks ago Minh-Tri Do asked me for my article, and when I said I had none, he very kindly went on the web and magically found a scanned copy[PDF] of it. I’m extremely grateful to Minh-Tri Do for his efforts (and many thanks, too, to David Feldman who provided the lead).

    For more about this fascinating topic, see a summary by Lieven le Bruyn here.

  • LHC beam commissioning is now in progress, it is supposed to start colliding beams for physics again in another week or so.
  • In the Dark Matter world, all eyes are on Xenon100, waiting to see what their results will be. Nature News has an update here. Next week Elena Aprile will be speaking at NEUTEL11 (which has a blog here) and revelations may occur.
  • This year’s Asimov debate is on the topic of string theory and whether there’s any hope for a unified theory. I’ll have to miss this, I’ll be at local bookstore Book Culture introducing Richard Panek who is giving a talk there that evening about his recent book that I wrote a review of for the Wall Street Journal. I’ll be curious though to hear from anyone who does go to the debate what they thought of it.
  • Blogging may become more sporadic over the next couple weeks. If so it’s because I’m on Spring Break in Paris.
  • Things don’t seem to have gone well for Raja of Invincible America John Hagelin and his Global Financial Capital of New York down on Wall Street. He has given up the mansion/headquarters building at 70 Broad Street, sold to a Chinese construction company. Nowadays he is President of the David Lynch Foundation and working on a much more conventional way to make a living, offering an on-line course on Quantum Field Theory, Superstring Theory, Inflationary Cosmology, and Higher States of Consciousness, $1400 if you take it for credit, $600 otherwise.
  • Update: A podcast of the Asimov debate is available here.

    Posted in Uncategorized | 30 Comments

    Space-time, Quantum Mechanics and the Large Hardon Collider

    The title of the posting is that of Nima Arkani-Hamed’s public lecture last week at the IAS, with the spelling that of the title at the beginning of the video (available here, lower resolution version here).

    The bulk of the talk is devoted to expounding the idea that the central problems of fundamental physics are two hierarchy problems, that of the CC (why isn’t it at the Planck scale?) and that of the Higgs mass (why isn’t it also at the Planck scale?). Given that we don’t understand quantum gravity, and don’t know that the Higgs phenomenon is due to an elementary scalar, it’s not clear to me that these are yet real problems. In any case, Arkani-Hamed gives the anthropic multiverse argument for the CC problem, and claims that if the LHC doesn’t see supersymmetry or large extra dimensions, then we’re stuck with the anthropic multiverse argument also for the electroweak scale.

    The LHC only puts in an appearance in the last fifteen minutes of an hour and a half talk. Back in 2005 (see his talk at Strings 2005) Arkani-Hamed claimed that we would know whether supersymmetry solves the hierarchy problem within a year or so of first collisions at the LHC (then scheduled for summer 2007). Now that initial results from the LHC are in, showing no evidence of supersymmetry, his estimate is:

    We’re going to have answers one way or another to this question on the time scale of 2020.

    One of his slides estimates production of 1 squark/minute given 1 billion collisions/sec, which would mean about 50 squarks already produced in each detector. While it’s true that the LHC won’t be running at full energy until 2014, no explanation is given for why we need to wait until 2020 to find out about supersymmetry. Back in 2005, before the machine was turned on, enthusiastic predictions of quick results were being made. Now that the data is coming in, the story seems to have changed.

    Update: Nature News has a new article up by Geoff Brumfiel: Beautiful theory collides with smashing particle data (also available here). While Arkani-Hamed is arguing that one will have to wait until 2020 (the sLHC perhaps?) before knowing whether supersymmetry is at LHC energies, John Ellis appears willing to give up much earlier, maybe the end of next year:

    “I’m wouldn’t say I’m concerned,” says John Ellis, a theorist at CERN, Europe’s particle-physics lab near Geneva, who has worked on supersymmetry for decades. He says that he will wait until the end of 2012–once more runs at high energy have been completed–before abandoning SUSY. Falkowski, a long-time critic of the theory, thinks that the lack of detections already suggest that SUSY is dead.

    “Privately, a lot of people think that the situation is not good for SUSY,” says Alessandro Strumia, a theorist at the University of Pisa in Italy, who recently produced a paper about the impact of the LHC’s latest results on the fine-tuning problem. “This is a big political issue in our field,” he adds. “For some great physicists, it is the difference between getting a Nobel prize and admitting they spent their lives on the wrong track.” Ellis agrees: “I’ve been working on it for almost 30 years now, and I can imagine that some people might get a little bit nervous.”

    The article ends with a very sensible quote from experimentalist Chris Lester, who evidently doesn’t share Arkani-Hamed’s view that it’s SUSY or the Multiverse:

    “Plenty of things will change if we fail to discover SUSY,” says Lester. Theoretical physicists will have to go back to the drawing board and find an alternative way to solve the problems with the standard model. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, he adds: “For particle physics as a whole it will be really exciting.”

    Update: It seems that the video files have been temporarily removed, presumably for editing. I fear that some poor tech person is having a bad morning…

    Update: New video files with typo fixed are now available.

    Posted in Favorite Old Posts, Uncategorized | 69 Comments

    Implications of Initial LHC Searches for Supersymmetry

    There’s a new paper out this evening from a large collaboration entitled Implications of Initial LHC Searches for Supersymmetry. Instead of just adding it to the bottom of my recent posting, I thought it would be a good idea to start a new one, and add a bit more explanation of what is going on.

    For a good news story from today by Kate McAlpine, see this at Physics World. For excellent more technical explanations, see the latest blog postings at Tommaso Dorigo’s blog (today) and at Resonaances (yesterday). Physics World, Tommaso and the new arXiv preprint discuss published results from CMS and ATLAS, while Resonaances discusses even more stringent preliminary limits on SUSY from ATLAS made public last week at Aspen.

    Tommaso also refers to a 2008 guest blog posting by Ben Allanach explaining how statistical predictions for SUSY masses were being made, adopting various simplifying assumptions (CMSSM) and assuming supersymmetry solves the problems it is advertised as solving (muon g-2 anomaly, dark matter, etc.). Allanach discusses the 2008 version of this kind of calculation by the same group that has just put out a new, 2/22/2011 version this evening.

    The usual model for how science is done is that theorists make predictions before an experiment is done, then when the experimental results come in, they get compared to the predictions. That’s not quite what is going on here, where as far as I can tell, the new paper doesn’t directly compare the 2008 predictions to the new experimental results. Instead, the new experimental results are used to make new predictions. Since a large part of the parameter space favored in the 2008 predictions has now been ruled out, the new ones move the favored part of parameter space up to higher particle masses. The authors do make clear what is going on, showing on their plots a “snowflake” where the 2008 best-fit value was, and “stars” for where the new best-fit values are based on data from the two experiments. Note that the paper does not include the latest, stronger results from ATLAS announced last week, which presumably would move the “stars” up to even higher mass.

    While the question this paper addresses about where supersymmetry might be given that it hasn’t been seen yet is interesting, it leaves unaddressed the more conventional question: do the LHC experimental results show that the theoretical predictions about supersymmetry made in 2008 before the machine was turned on were wrong? This is a statistical question, so should have a statistical answer. Assuming that the LHC continues to not see supersymmetry as it collects more data, I’m interested in the question of how the experimental data will falsify the theory. Will its proponents just keep calculating statistical predictions of higher and higher masses as lower ones get ruled out? Most will undoubtedly at some point throw in the towel, although there will be some who will never, never, never, never give up (see here):

    SUSY may still be there even if it remains invisible to the LHC, indeed. And yes, I don’t hide that I will be convinced that SUSY is there even if the LHC doesn’t find it. The LHC will only confirm or exclude effects at particular regimes – usually low energy but it’s not quite accurate a description of the regime that may be excluded.

    What I have been scared for several years is the pseudoscientific propaganda of your kind trying to claim – without any justification – that not seeing SUSY at the LHC should imply that physicists shouldn’t be allowed to work on SUSY or believe that it is a key feature of our Universe. There are many reasons to think it’s the case and theorists whom I consider any good will continue to treat SUSY as an essential feature whether or not it shows up at the LHC.

    Update: See figure 1 of this evening’s What if the LHC does not find supersymmetry in the sqrt(s)=7 TeV run? to see how how much of the predicted region of superpartner masses was ruled out by initial LHC results, and how much of the rest is likely to be ruled out during by the 2011-2 7 TeV run.

    Update: There’s a very new up-to-the-minute survey of LHC results concentrating on supersymmetry by John Ellis here. Unfortunately no figures that superimpose CMS/ATLAS exclusion regions on the statistically favored regions for supersymmetry that are discussed (based on assuming supersymmetry explains dark matter and the muon g-2 anomaly). It does look like this year’s data should be able to convincingly rule out the idea that supersymmetry explains both of these phenomena.

    Update: The ATLAS results providing the strongest limits so far on SUSY are now out, see the paper here.

    Posted in Experimental HEP News | 64 Comments

    This Week’s Hype

    A session on results from the LHC at last week’s AAAS meeting has generated some news reports about results from the heavy ion run, see here and here. Under the heading “String theory supported”, MSNBC reports:

    Previous experiments conducted at another particle accelerator, the Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collider in New York, showed that quark-gluon plasma took on the form of a liquid. Some scientists expected the plasma to go to a gaseous state at the higher temperatures achieved by ALICE, but it didn’t. Instead, it was a “perfect liquid, which flows without resistance and is completely opaque,” Schutz said.

    That in itself was a big surprise. But Schutz told me that the results were consistent with what had been predicted by a particular variant of string theory known as AdS/CFT correspondence, which also addresses such mysteries as quantum gravity and extra dimensions. “I’m surprised that they can make a prediction and that it matches what we measured,” Schutz said.

    String theory is a long-debated conception of the subatomic world that envisions matter as being composed of incredibly tiny strings or membranes that vibrate in an 11-dimensional universe. Skeptics have criticized the concept as being untestable and unfalsifiable, but if findings from the LHC can confirm some hypotheses and falsify others, that could increase string theory’s acceptance.

    The campaign to deal with the failure of string theory unification by confusing it with AdS/CFT as an approximate calculational method continues. No matter how successful or unsuccessful AdS/CFT is at describing heavy-ion collisions, this has nothing to do with string theory as a unified theory of gravity and the Standard Model. I am curious though about the question of how well AdS/CFT does work as an approximation for describing heavy-ion physics. Can anyone point me to distinctive AdS/CFT predictions about what the LHC should see that are now being tested? The news reports just seem to refer to evidence that at LHC energies the quark-gluon plasma seems to continue to exhibit the perfect liquid behavior seen at RHIC.

    Update: See the comment section for an extensive discussion by someone expert in the field (Hans Juergen Pirner) relevant to the question I was raising.

    Posted in This Week's Hype | 23 Comments