Highlights of Classical and Quantum Gravity

Good news today, the paper Tidal acceleration of black holes and superradiance by Vitor (Cardoso) and myself was selected by the Editorial Board of Classical and Quantum Gravity (CQG) to be one of the journal’s Highlights of 2012-2013!

Besides being now free to download, the Highlights will be promoted in a number of campaigns over the next year  as a representation of some of the most interesting and high-quality work in gravitational physics.

But what makes the paper really worth a reading is the first paragraph, where we managed to refer to both Italian novelist Italo Calvino and mighty rock band Pink Floyd... that's quite an impressive achievement for a scientific paper!

If you wish to know what Pink Floyd's masterpiece "The Dark Side of the Moon" has to
 do with black holes, read the (not-very-technical) paper here.

Quote of the day: A lost Generation?

" It is easy to estimate the total number of active high-energy theorists. Every day hep-th and hep-ph bring us about thirty new papers. Assuming that on average an active theorist publishes 3-4 papers per year, we get 2500 to 3000 theorists. The majority of them are young theorists in their thirties or early forties. During their careers many of them never worked on any issues beyond supersymmetry-based phenomenology or string theory. Given the crises (or, at least, huge question marks) in these two areas we currently face, there seems to be a serious problem in the community. Usually such times of uncertainty as to the direction of future research offer wide opportunities to young people, in the prime of their careers. To grab these opportunities a certain reorientation and reeducation are apparently needed. Will this happen?" (M. Shifman).

From the paper arXiv:1211.0004v3:
"Reflections and Impressionistic Portrait at the Conference Frontiers Beyond the Standard Model", FTPI, Oct. 2012
M. Shifman, William I. Fine Theoretical Physics Institute, University of Minnesota.

"Paper of the day": IS IT A BUBBLE?

Recently I read a notice and after the relative paper titled “A Tentative Gamma-Ray Line from Dark Matter Annihilation at the Fermi Large Area Telescope”. The Fermi Large Area Telescope (also known with the name GLAST, Gamma-Ray Large Area Telescope) is an international mission designed with the aim to explore the sky at very high energies. It is a space telescope capable of detecting photons in the range from 30 MeV to 300 GeV. The Fermi space observatory is a NASA mission with a broad international collaboration (Italy, Japan, France, Sweden). After the activation in orbit, the mission has been dedicated to Enrico Fermi and nowadays it is known as the Fermi Gamma-Ray Telescope. The autor of the paper, independently from the Fermi official collaboration, claimed to observe a gamma-ray signature in the cosmic-ray coming from dark matter annihilation in the Universe (indeed the pair-annihilation of Galactic dark matter produce a monochromatic or internal bremsstrahlung gamma rays that rise from the continuous background). 

Neutrini: storie di anomalie!!

Iniziamo questa avventura nella fisica proprio con il contest “Paper of the Day”, ma dal momento che non si è stabilita una data precisa per l’inizio, mi sono preso la libertà di controllare nell'archivo di "http://arxiv.org/"  in un intorno della data dell’inizio del blog. La mia attenzione è stata catturata da due articoli tra loro correlati, il tema legante è l'oscillazione di neutrini. Il primo "Resolving the LSND anomaly by neutrino diffraction" (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.3105.pdf ) e il secondo "Light Sterile Neutrinos: A White Paper" (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.5379.pdf). Il legante di questi articoli è il fenomeno dell’oscillazione dei neutrini e di qualche loro anomalia (tranquilli sto già pensando di inserire qualche ulteriore post per chiarire tutti gli aspetti che trascurerò in questo blog ma per ora mi devo accontentare di instillare la vostra curiosità), fenomeno teorizzato da un fisico italiano Pontercorvo, per interpretare un rompicapo che assillava i fisici, ed in particolare Ray Davis e John N. Bahcall negli anni ’60. Tale rompicapo riguardava il flusso dei neutrini provenienti dal Sole. Innanzitutto la rivelazione di tali neutrini permetteva di confermare il fatto che all’interno del Sole avvenivano dei processi nucleari, e in particolare la fusione di  4 nuclei di idrogeno in uno di elio, che passa per un decadimento beta inverso con la conseguente produzione di neutrini elettronici. Tali modelli teorici erano ben formulati e l’esponente principale era appunto il fisico John Bachall che  insieme all'astrofisico Ray Davis propose l’esperimento Homestake (chiamato così perchè situato nella miniera d’oro di Homestake nel Sud Dakota) per verificare tale ipotesi. Il risultato dell’esperimento fu positivo, i neutrini venivano prodotti nel sole confermando l’esistenza delle reazioni nucleari… ma .. c’è un ma, i neutrini rivelati erano meno della metà di quelli previsti. Si invocarono errori sperimentali o errori del modello teorico (che tuttavia fondava le sue solide basi sulla relazione tra la luminosità solare e il flusso di neutrini) ma tutti controlli successivi mostravano sia che l’esperimento funzionava bene e sia che il modello solare teorico era solido. Per cui si iniziò a pensare in maniera seria all’ipotesi di Pontecorvo: in maniera approssimativa possiamo dire che  i neutrini vengono prodotti come autostati del sapore quindi come neutrini elettronici, muonici o tauonici, ma essi si propagano come autostati dell’energia, se quindi i diversi neutrini hanno diversa massa si viene a creare una interfererenza che conferisce un carattere oscillatorio e permettere di mescolare tra lori i neutrini di diverso sapore. 

Out of contest

Today's Gerard 't Hooft's paper. The incipit reads:

In modern science, real numbers play such a fundamental role that it is difficult to imagine a world without real numbers. Nevertheless, one may suspect that real numbers are nothing but a human invention. By chance, humanity discovered over 2000 years ago that our world can be understood very accurately if we phraze its laws and its symmetries by manipulating real numbers, not only using addition and multiplication, but also subtraction and division, and later of course also the extremely rich mathematical machinery beyond that, manipulations that do not work so well for integers alone, or even more limited quantities such as Boolean variables.

Now imagine that, in contrast to these appearances, the real world, at its most fundamental level, were not based on real numbers at all. We here consider systems where only the integers describe what happens at a deeper level. Can one understand why our world appears to be based on real numbers?

Isn't this enough to continue reading?

Paper of the Day (gr-qc)

http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4524

During the weekend I though it could have been a good experiment having a small "journal club" on papers submitted daily on the arXiv (i'll write something on arXiv one of these days). I cannot promise this blog-review will be very regular, but i'll do my best for the gr-qc and hep-th sections. Other contributors are in charge for other sections.

Our idea is to pick selected papers and describe them very briefly and informally. This brings me to the next problem: selecting the papers.

ArXivwise, Monday is usually quite a boring day. Papers appearing on Mondays are those submitted during the weekend and this explains why there are (on average) less papers. Well, not today!

Today the choice was quite hard (and not only because Frank Wilczek's "A Long View of Particle Physics"). Anyway my choice goes to Kent Yagi's paper above, which (or probably also because) is closely related to some projects I'm recently involved to.

Yagi is interested in constraining "alternative theories of gravity", i.e. theories that modify General Relativity (GR) in some regime. Typically, alternative theories differ from GR in  the description of the dynamics of black holes, neutron stars and other compact objects, but they are conceived in such a way that they pass Solar System tests. I'll postpone the motivation to investigate these theories and my personal interest for them to a future post, for the time being let me just say that it is very hard to modify GR in a way that is compatible with current and past experiment.

In brief, the paper above discuss: (i) a way to put very stringent constraints (in fact, much more stringent than those coming from Solar System experiments) to a particular class of theories that modify GR in the strong-curvature regime and (ii) that, despite these strong constraints, these theories "could" explain an unexpected astrophysical result: apparently, the orbital separation of some binary system (i.e. the distance between two compact objects orbiting each other) decreases in time faster than what is predicted in GR. That the distance decreases is well-known: it is due to the emission of gravitational waves (GWs) from the system. The fact that the this decrease is faster than expected, points to some poor understanding of the astrophysical processes involved in the process or to a more copious emission of GWs than what expected in GR. A quite common feature of modified gravities is that they predict a more efficient GW emission but (iii) the results of this paper would be very difficult to obtain by considering a alternative theory other than what Yagi considers. This should come as a surprise, given the ridiculously large number of proposed alternatives but, on the other hand, it makes the results more interesting. 

As the author stresses all over the paper, the cause of this discrepancy is most probably of astrophysical origin. However, it's intriguing to observe that current observations do not rule possible deviations from Einstein's theory at astrophysical level and, most importantly, that these corrections may eventually play a role in explaining the dynamics of compact stars and black holes [i'm sure the astro-contributors won't agree with me here :)]

[Note added in proof: next posts will be shorter!]