Of Particular Significance

I attended a conference this past week celebrating two great physicists (Steve Shenker and Renata Kallosh) whom I got to know pretty well during the early part of my career. Unlike most of the conferences I’ve attended in recent years, there were no talks at all about the Large Hadron Collider; the community of speakers was largely drawn from experts on quantum field theory, quantum gravity, string theory and cosmology.

IMG_20130909_180422_142

Any one of the talks would require an extensive article, especially since the required background material isn’t currently explained on this website. So rather than get bogged down in details, I thought I’d try to give you more of the general flavor — reflective, perhaps, of the tenor of the field at the moment. I’ll cover a couple of the talks later, if time permits (though I’m a bit under the gun at the moment…)

If you like to put labels on people, you’d probably call most of the speakers “string theorists.” This is a useful label if you’re in a hurry and not very interested, or if you want to abuse people, but not so useful if you want to actually understand their research. Indeed, out of about 21 talks, there were 3 on string theory.  That said, many of the speakers have in the past done some research in string theory, and many of the talks owe a debt to lessons that have been learned from string theory.

So what were the talks about?  What are these people actually doing? (more…)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON September 16, 2013

This week I’m at Stanford University, where I went to graduate school, attending a conference celebrating the illustrious careers of two great physicists, Renata Kallosh and Steve Shenker.

KalloshenkerColorPhotosBWBackground

Kallosh is one of the world’s experts on black holes, supersymmetry,  cosmic inflation (that period, still conjectural but gaining acceptance, during which the universe is suspected to have expanded at an unbelievable rapid rate), and “quantization” (i.e., on how to define quantum field theories and quantum gravity theories so that they actually make mathematical sense — which is not easy to do correctly). Much of her work concerns supersymmetry and its application to quantum gravity and to superstring theory. Her technical expertise and her inventiveness are legendary, as is her friendly enthusiasm. I’ve known her since I was a graduate student; she was one of a number of famous scientists from the former Soviet Union who came to the United States around 1988-1989.  Aside from just interacting with her within Stanford’s small community of theoretical physics students, postdocs and faculty, I also attended two courses that she taught on advanced topics, one on supersymmetry and one on quantization.

Shenker is famous for a number of papers that significantly changed our understanding of quantum field theory, quantum gravity and string theory. His fame derives in part from his ability to extract deep insights about physics from just a few mathematical clues — often ones that only he recognizes as being clues in the first place. Shenker was a faculty member at Rutgers when I was a postdoctoral researcher there in the mid-90s. (He later moved to Stanford.)  I cannot count the profound lessons that I learned during those years from him (and the other Rutgers faculty), both at our daily group lunch, and in the lounge where several of the faculty and other postdocs would regularly gather in the mornings. And I was even fortunate enough to write a paper (on black holes and their entropy) together with him and another then-postdoc, Dan Kabat. Aside from his down-to-earth no-nonsense style, and his strong support of young people and their ideas, one thing I remember well about Shenker is that it was perilous to say anything interesting to him while walking back from lunch on a bitterly cold day. He would stop and think… and the rest of us would freeze.

In the wider world of the public, and especially the blogosphere, Kallosh and Shenker would probably be labelled as “string theorists.” Such terminology would be somewhat crude, for it would fail to capture the range and depth of their careers. Appropriately, the talks at the conference so far have ranged widely, including general attempts to make some sense of quantum gravity,  discussion of the information-loss problem of black holes (the so-called “firewall” problem), unexpected subtleties in how quantum field theory works (yes, we are still learning!), new ways of thinking about the physics of electrical conductors and insulators, and advances in our understanding of cosmic inflation. And there were even a couple of talks on string theory.  (That said, the long shadow of string theory, and its direct and indirect influence on many other subfields, can be palpably felt at this conference.  More on that subject another day.)

Since I’ve been so busy with Large Hadron Collider physics in recent years, and haven’t been following these subfields closely, it’s been a very educational conference for me.  I’ll describe some of the talks later in the week.

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON September 11, 2013

This week I’m in California, at a conference celebrating two famous professors, from whom I learned an enormous amount when I was a graduate student and postdoctoral researcher. More on this later in the week.

Today, I just want to let you know I have completed the core of my naturalness article, which I began writing a couple of weeks ago. (more…)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON September 9, 2013

Done: All three parts of my lecture for a general audience on String Theory are up now…

Beyond the Hype: The Weird World of String Theory (Science on Tap, Seattle, WA, September 25, 2006). Though a few years old, this talk is still very topical; it covers the history, development, context and impact of string theory from its earliest beginnings to the (then) present.

Be forewarned: although the audio is pretty good, this was an amateur video taken by one of the organizers of the talk, and because the place was small and totally packed with people, it’s not great quality… but good enough to follow, I think, so I’ve posted it.

  1. Part 1 (10 mins.): String theory’s beginnings in hadron physics and the early attempts to use it as a theory of quantum gravity.
  2. Part 2 (10 mins.): String theory was shown to be a mathematically consistent candidate for a theory of all of quantum gravity and particle physics, and became a really popular idea.
  3. Part 3 (9 mins.): How string theory evolved through the major technical and conceptual advances of the 1990s.

By the way, if you’re interested in other talks I’ve given for a general audience, you can check out my video clips, which include a recent hour-long talk on the Quest for the Higgs Boson.

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON September 6, 2013

For today’s post, I’ve added a bit more information to the article that I’m gradually writing on “naturalness”.  So far, in that article and an accompanying one, I have

And now the next installment of the article on Naturalness and the Standard Model provides additional knowledge that you’ll need, if you want to understand the argument that suggests the Standard Model (the highly successful equations used to predict the behavior of the known particles and forces) is an apparently unnatural (i.e., highly atypical) theory.

Specifically, the new section of the article explains how the Higgs field’s average value, and the Higgs particle’s mass, are determined (as for any similar field) by how the energy of empty space — to which the above-mentioned quantum fluctuations are a crucial contributor — depends on the Higgs field itself.

Yes, this is a long story — but so central to current “conventional wisdom” about the universe that we’d better go through it carefully.  By the next installment, we should be getting to the heart of the matter.

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON September 4, 2013

Welcome September!  I’m going to be quite busy for a bit, partly because I have two big science projects that need to get finished, partly because I’m settling in at my new location this week — which always takes longer than one hopes and expects. But I’ve got a few things in the pipeline for the blog, so there will be posts to follow soon.

If you were away last week, you missed the first two sections of a collection of articles that I’m writing on “naturalness”, a concept that’s central to the lines of reasoning often taken by particle physicists and their colleagues, both nowadays and over the past few decades. These articles came out last week, one on Tuesday (explaining what “natural” means in this context, and giving a first glimpse into what particle physicists mean by saying the Standard Model is “unnatural”) and one on Friday of last week, where I explained something about the quantum fluctuations of the fields of nature and how they can have lots of energy — energy which,

I said something (not very much, really) about the first problem on Friday, and it’s not my main focus right now. My plan this week is to start explaining the details of the second problem.

So stay tuned…

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON September 3, 2013

Search

Buy The Book

Reading My Book?

Got a question? Ask it here.

Media Inquiries

For media inquiries, click here.