TR: Why Spacetime On The Tiniest Scale May Be 2-Dimensional

Find out the latest thinking about our universe.
User avatar
bystander
Apathetic Retiree
Posts: 21593
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Oklahoma

TR: Why Spacetime On The Tiniest Scale May Be 2-Dimensional

Post by bystander » Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:59 am

Why Spacetime On The Tiniest Scale May Be 2-Dimensional
Technology Review | the physics arXiv blog | 08 Sept 2010
The latest thinking about quantum gravity suggests that spacetime is 2-dimensional on the smallest scale. And there may be a way to prove it

In 1973, George Ellis and Stephen Hawking published a book called The Large Scale Structure of Spacetime. Their aim, they said, was to understand spacetime on the scale ranging from 10^(-13)cm to 10^28cm or, in other words, from the size of elementary particles to the radius of the universe.

That may sound ambitious but nearly 40 years later cosmologists have pretty much nailed it, says Steve Carlip, a theoretical physicist at the University of California, Davis. "To the best of our ability to measure such a thing, it behaves as a smooth (3+1)-dimensional Riemannian manifold."

Which is why theoretical physicists have turned their attention to the structure of spacetime on even smaller scales. However, there is a problem here. "For the most part we have neither direct observations nor a generally accepted theoretical framework for describing the very small-scale structure of spacetime," says Carlip. Indeed, nobody is quite sure whether the terms 'space' and 'time' have any reasonable meaning at this scale.

Today, Carlip outlines his own fascinating take on the problem which is that spacetime on the tiniest scale may be two dimensional. While that may seem a little counterintuitive, he says there is a growing number of indicators (evidence is too strong a word) that point to that conclusion.

Carlip says recent work in loop quantum gravity, high temperature string theory, renormalization group analysis applied to general relativity and other areas of quantum gravity research, all hints at a two dimensional spacetime on the smallest scale. In most of these cases, the number of dimensions simply collapse in a process called spontaneous dimensional reduction as the scale reduces.

One obvious question is that if only two dimensions are present on this scale, which two are they? Carlip calculates that they must be one of time and one of space. "At each point, the dynamics picks out a "preferred" spatial direction, leading to approximately (1+1)-dimensional local physics," he says.

He then moves into interesting territory with the claim that this preferred direction must be determined classically and then randomised by the physical processes at work on these scales. That sounds tantalisingly like a hidden variable theory of the kind that might please at least one Nobel prize-winning physicist.

The million dollar question is whether Carlip's take on the topic is correct. He cheerfully admits that the idea is "still very speculative". That doesn't distinguish it in any significant way from much of the rest of modern cosmology.

However, unlike many quantum gravity theorists, Carlip hints at the kind of experiments that might prove him right. "The process I have described breaks Lorentz invariance at the Planck scale, and even small violations at that scale can be magnified and lead to observable effects at large scales," he says.

That's an interesting thought. What he's saying is that the laws of physics at this scale ought to change according to the direction in which you're travelling. And although they'll constantly vary in a random way, that could still be measurable in a sufficiently clever experiment.

Time for the experimentalists to get to get their thinking caps on.
The Small Scale Structure of Spacetime - S Carlip

User avatar
rstevenson
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Posts: 2705
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Halifax, NS, Canada

Re: TR: Why Spacetime On The Tiniest Scale May Be 2-Dimensio

Post by rstevenson » Wed Sep 08, 2010 12:55 pm

I think I see an interesting parallel between this line of research and that described in the thread Universe Chaotic From Very Beginning as well as the thread Observations Suggest Variation in Fine Structure Constant.

We certainly live in interesting times.

Rob

User avatar
bystander
Apathetic Retiree
Posts: 21593
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Re: TR: Why Spacetime On The Tiniest Scale May Be 2-Dimensio

Post by bystander » Wed Sep 08, 2010 5:08 pm

rstevenson wrote:I think I see an interesting parallel between this line of research and that described in the thread Universe Chaotic From Very Beginning as well as the thread Observations Suggest Variation in Fine Structure Constant.

We certainly live in interesting times.
See what happens when particle physicists get involved in cosmology ... :mrgreen:

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: TR: Why Spacetime On The Tiniest Scale May Be 2-Dimensio

Post by Beyond » Wed Sep 08, 2010 5:39 pm

bystander wrote:See what happens when particle physicists get involved in cosmology ... :mrgreen:
Oh, i don't know. Seems like this fella is close to something. He may sound a little strange for now, but it seems like many a great discovery has come from "strange" ideas.
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 18805
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

3-Dimensional space is a wriggling Hilbert Cube?

Post by neufer » Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:30 pm

Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 13867
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: TR: Why Spacetime On The Tiniest Scale May Be 2-Dimensio

Post by Ann » Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:18 am

rstevenson wrote:I think I see an interesting parallel between this line of research and that described in the thread Universe Chaotic From Very Beginning as well as the thread Observations Suggest Variation in Fine Structure Constant.

We certainly live in interesting times.

Rob
I just read about how the universe may have been chaotic from the very beginning. Quite interesting, and I don't think I have read anything similar before. That in itself makes me think that this guy may be on to something.

On the other hand, the suggestion that spacetime may be 2-dimensional on the tiniest scale sounds just too much like proving that string theory is right. I'm not saying that the cosmologist behind this claim may not be right. It's just that he is trying to prove something that so many people wish to be true, and he admits that he has no real evidence, and I didn't get too impressed when he described the experiments he would use to test his hypothesis.

My impression is that the best discoveries have been unexpected. Who would have thought that the Sun has spots before the fact was discovered? Who would have thought that the Earth orbits the Sun, even though everybody could "see" that the Earth was the center of the universe and the Sun rose and set around it every day? Who would have thought that the "fixed stars" move? Who would have thought that that "cloudy spot" in Andromeda is an enormous collection of billions of stars which is separate from our own galaxy? Who would have thought that there are many other galaxies as well, indeed billions of them? Who would have thought that the universe is not static? Who would have thought that the universe is expanding? Who would have thought that the entire universe was once schorchingly hot and incredibly, unbelievably tiny? And who would have thought that the expansion of the universe is accelerating?

These discoveries have all come as a shock. They were true "discoveries". Other discoveries have been more like something that "people knew all the time", or something that "astronomers have suspected for a long time", and now we just need to prove it. You may still prove these things, and they may still be true. Just because "everybody" "knows" that there is life on Mars doesn't mean that there isn't life on Mars.

But you should prove it first. Same goes for string theory.

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/Pop ... gold_0.jpg

Ann
Color Commentator

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 18805
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: TR: Why Spacetime On The Tiniest Scale May Be 2-Dimensio

Post by neufer » Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:40 am

Ann wrote:
My impression is that the best discoveries have been unexpected. Who would have thought that the Sun has spots before the fact was discovered? Who would have thought that the Earth orbits the Sun, even though everybody could "see" that the Earth was the center of the universe and the Sun rose and set around it every day? Who would have thought that the "fixed stars" move? Who would have thought that that "cloudy spot" in Andromeda is an enormous collection of billions of stars which is separate from our own galaxy? Who would have thought that there are many other galaxies as well, indeed billions of them? Who would have thought that the universe is not static? Who would have thought that the universe is expanding? Who would have thought that the entire universe was once scorchingly hot and incredibly, unbelievably tiny? And who would have thought that the expansion of the universe is accelerating?

These discoveries have all come as a shock. They were true "discoveries". Other discoveries have been more like something that "people knew all the time", or something that "astronomers have suspected for a long time", and now we just need to prove it. You may still prove these things, and they may still be true. Just because "everybody" "knows" that there is life on Mars doesn't mean that there isn't life on Mars.
I totally disagree with your assessment, Ann.

Our concept of evolution has slowly evolved over hundreds of years.

Our concepts of atoms, space/time and the universe have slowly evolved over thousands of years.
http://www-scf.usc.edu/~kallos/feynman.htm wrote:
<<Richard Feynman:
  • If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generation of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis that: All things are made of atoms-little particles that that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another. In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied.>>
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 18618
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: TR: Why Spacetime On The Tiniest Scale May Be 2-Dimensio

Post by Chris Peterson » Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:01 am

Ann wrote:My impression is that the best discoveries have been unexpected.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "best", and on when you are talking about these discoveries happening. Before science became such a refined technique, a lot of very basic knowledge stemmed from unexpected discoveries. But I think that is getting increasingly rare. I don't mean that serendipity doesn't still play a role, but for the last century- longer for some areas of science- most of the gain in knowledge has been more evolutionary than revolutionary. It is rare now to throw away any major theory and replace it with another. In so many areas- including astronomy- it appears likely that most of the fundamentals are in place, and understood at least broadly. So more and more of the really important discoveries are actually coming out of a rational, guided search for specific sorts of observations.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 13867
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: TR: Why Spacetime On The Tiniest Scale May Be 2-Dimensio

Post by Ann » Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:04 am

You are right about what you said about evolution and the theory about atoms, neufer. These ideas certainly developed slowly and over a long time.

The thing about some popular concepts, however, is that they are popular while there is little proof that they are true. Therefore there is a "demand" for evidence that they are true. Therefore, people are likely to try to come up with such evidence.

Darwin, however, didn't write The Origin of the Species because there was a strong scientific or popular demand for proof that life has evolved gradually over time rather than having been created once and for all at the dawn of time. As for atoms, yes, the idea that such things exist dates back to Democritos (I think). But there was not a strong demand for proof that the atomic world is quite different from our own, and that things happen in the world of atoms which are impossible in the world we know (such as a single photon passing through two slits at the same time, etcetera).

There is, I'll insist, quite a strong demand for proof that string theory is correct. And it may certainly be correct, for all I know. I'm just saying that there is an increased risk that string theorists and other cosmologists will be so eager to produce the evidence they would so dearly love to have that they may cut a few corners in their attempts to reach their goals.

But give me good evidence that string theory is correct, and I will certainly believe in it.

Ann
Color Commentator

User avatar
rstevenson
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Posts: 2705
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Halifax, NS, Canada

Re: TR: Why Spacetime On The Tiniest Scale May Be 2-Dimensio

Post by rstevenson » Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:27 pm

Ann wrote:There is, I'll insist, quite a strong demand for proof that string theory is correct. And it may certainly be correct, for all I know. I'm just saying that there is an increased risk that string theorists and other cosmologists will be so eager to produce the evidence they would so dearly love to have that they may cut a few corners in their attempts to reach their goals.
While it's good to repeat the standard caution against looking for what you expect to see, I think your concern is misplaced here. I don't think there is a strong demand to prove string theory is correct, rather there is a strong need to prove it either correct or incorrect. One way or the other, the results will be extremely interesting.

Rob

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 13867
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: TR: Why Spacetime On The Tiniest Scale May Be 2-Dimensio

Post by Ann » Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:45 pm

Rob wrote:
While it's good to repeat the standard caution against looking for what you expect to see, I think your concern is misplaced here. I don't think there is a strong demand to prove string theory is correct, rather there is a strong need to prove it either correct or incorrect. One way or the other, the results will be extremely interesting.
That's a good point, Rob. I agree with you there.

Ann
Color Commentator

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 18805
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: TR: Why Spacetime On The Tiniest Scale May Be 2-Dimensio

Post by neufer » Thu Sep 09, 2010 5:38 pm

Ann wrote:
Darwin, however, didn't write The Origin of the Species because there was a strong scientific or popular demand for proof that life has evolved gradually over time rather than having been created once and for all at the dawn of time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought wrote:
<<Evolutionary thought, the conception that species change over time, has roots in antiquity, in the ideas of the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Chinese as well as in medieval Islamic science.

Several ancient Greek philosophers discussed ideas that involved change in living organisms over time. Anaximander (c.610–546 BC) proposed that the first animals lived in water and animals that live on land were generated from them. Empedocles (c. 490–430 BC) wrote of a non-supernatural origin for living things, suggesting that adaptation did not require an organizer or final cause. Aristotle summarized his idea: "Wherever then all the parts came about just what they would have been if they had come to be for an end, such things survived, being organized spontaneously in a fitting way; whereas those which grew otherwise perished and continue to perish ..." although Aristotle himself rejected this view.

Aristotle's (384–322 BC) works contain some remarkably astute observations and interpretations—along with sundry myths and mistakes—reflecting the uneven state of knowledge during his time. However, for Charles Singer, "Nothing is more remarkable than [Aristotle's] efforts to [exhibit] the relationships of living things as a scala naturæ." This scala naturæ, described in Historia animalium, classified organisms in relation to a hierarchical "Ladder of Life" or "Chain of Being", placing them according to their complexity of structure and function, with organisms that showed greater vitality and ability to move described as "higher organisms".

Ideas on evolution were expressed by ancient Chinese thinkers such as Zhuangzi (Chuang Tzu), a Taoist philosopher who lived around the 4th century BC. According to Joseph Needham, Taoism explicitly denies the fixity of biological species and Taoist philosophers speculated that species had developed differing attributes in response to differing environments.

Titus Lucretius Carus (d. 50 BC), the Roman philosopher and atomist, wrote the poem On the Nature of Things (De rerum natura), which provides the best surviving explanation of the ideas of the Greek Epicurean philosophers. It describes the development of the cosmos, the Earth, living things, and human society through purely naturalistic mechanisms, without any reference to supernatural involvement. On the Nature of things would influence the cosmological and evolutionary speculations of philosophers and scientists during and after the Renaissance.

In line with earlier Greek thought, the 4th century bishop and theologian, St. Augustine of Hippo, wrote that the creation story in Genesis should not be read too literally. In his book De Genesi ad litteram ("On The Literal Interpretation of Genesis"), he stated that in some cases new creatures may have come about through the "decomposition" of earlier forms of life. For Augustine, "plant, fowl and animal life are not perfect ... but created in a state of potentiality", unlike what he considered the theologically perfect forms of angels, the firmament and the human soul. Augustine's idea 'that forms of life had been transformed "slowly over time"' prompted Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, to claim that Augustine had suggested a form of evolution.>>
Ann wrote:
As for atoms, yes, the idea that such things exist dates back to Democritos (I think). But there was not a strong demand for proof that the atomic world is quite different from our own, and that things happen in the world of atoms which are impossible in the world we know (such as a single photon passing through two slits at the same time, etcetera).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leucippus wrote:
Image
Nothing happens at random (maten),
but everything from reason (ek logou)
and by necessity.
—Leucippus, Diels-Kranz 67 B2
<<Leucippus or Leukippos (Λεύκιππος, first half of 5th century BC) was the first Greek to develop the theory of atomism — the idea that everything is composed entirely of various imperishable, indivisible elements called atoms — which was elaborated in far greater detail by his pupil and successor, Democritus. Leucippus was most probably born in Miletus, although Abdera and Elea are also mentioned as possible birth-places.

<<Leucippus was a shadowy figure, as his dates are not recorded and he is often mentioned in conjunction with his more well-known pupil Democritus, who replaced indeterminism with determinism as the ontological cause of atomic movement. It is therefore difficult to determine which contributions come from Democritus and which come from Leucippus.

In his Corpus Democriteum, Thrasyllus of Alexandria, an astrologer and writer living under the emperor Tiberius (14-37 CE) compiled a list of writings traditionally attributed to Democritus to the exclusion of Leucippus.

Leucippus was an Ionian Greek (Ionia, at present Turkey) as was Anaxagoras, and a contemporary of Zeno of Elea and Empedocles (Magna Graecia, at present Italy). Belonging to the same Ionian School of naturalistic philosophy as Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, he was interested in reality and not ideality as the Italic Eleatics were. The legend about the influence of Zeno is totally false, as modern studies established, also because the ontological conception of being of the Eleatics is static, monistic and deterministic, while Leucippus' is dynamic, pluralistic and indeterministic.

Around 440 B.C. or 430 B.C. Leucippus founded a school at Abdera, which his pupil, Democritus, was closely associated with. His fame was so completely overshadowed by that of Democritus, who systematized his views on atoms, that Epicurus doubted his very existence.

However, Aristotle and Theophrastus explicitly credit Leucippus with the invention of Atomism. Leucippus agreed with the Eleatic argument that true being does not admit of vacuum, and there can be no movement in the absence of vacuum. Leucippus contended that since movement exists, there has to be vacuum. However, he concludes that vacuum is identified with non-being, since it cannot really be. Leucippus differed from the Eleatics in not being encumbered by the conceptual intermingling of being and non-being. Plato made the necessary distinction between grades of being and types of negation.

The most famous among Leucippus' lost works were titled
Megas Diakosmos (The Great Order of the Universe)
and Peri Nou (On mind).
>>
-----------------------------------
Perry Nouendorffer

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 13867
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

TR: Why Spacetime On The Tiniest Scale May Be 2-Dimensional

Post by Ann » Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:00 am

Very interesting, Art (or I should say Perry - I like your new name, not that there is anything wrong with the old one).

You are absolutely right that ideas that suggested evolution had been around for a long time. Personally I didn't realize just how long they had been around, so thank you very much for enlightening me.

However, I will not take back my point that there was not a strong popular or even scientific demand for Darwins idea at the time when he made his groundbreaking work public. If there had been, I don't think Darwin would have been so reluctant to publish On the Origin of the Species. He was vain enough to wish to have his work recognized, which is why he eventually published when he realized that another person was working on a book with a similar content. The fact that another man had had the same idea as Darwin at the same time as Darwin demonstrates, of course, that the cat was about to get out of the bag anyway.

But still I don't think that there was a strong demand for Darwin's idea. I am not aware that people before Darwin had expressed a wish that science would come up with proof that life had evolved on the Earth.

But if you can show me, preferably by quoting a source, that there were people at Darwin's time who had publicly expressed the opinion that life may have evolved into different species, then I will agree that there was indeed some sort of scientific or public demand for Darwin's theory. But until you can show me that, I won't admit that such a demand existed.

Ann
Last edited by Ann on Tue Aug 30, 2011 4:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Religious references removed.
Color Commentator

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 18805
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

I'm Sparticles. No, I'm Sparticles.

Post by neufer » Sun Sep 12, 2010 6:41 pm

rstevenson wrote:
Ann wrote:
There is, I'll insist, quite a strong demand for proof that string theory is correct. And it may certainly be correct, for all I know. I'm just saying that there is an increased risk that string theorists and other cosmologists will be so eager to produce the evidence they would so dearly love to have that they may cut a few corners in their attempts to reach their goals.
While it's good to repeat the standard caution against looking for what you expect to see, I think your concern is misplaced here. I don't think there is a strong demand to prove string theory is correct, rather there is a strong need to prove it either correct or incorrect. One way or the other, the results will be extremely interesting.
Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 13867
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: TR: Why Spacetime On The Tiniest Scale May Be 2-Dimensio

Post by Ann » Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:51 am

Well, wow. Professor Kaku certainly expresses a demand for string theory, because it will give us a concept that I am not allowed to utter here, but it begins with the letter "G". But while there is a tremendous demand for this G-concept, there is very little demand for the Higgs boson, and the particle accelerator in Texas got nixed when it only asked for Higgs! The people demanding the Texas accelearator should have stopped one letter earlier in the alphabet!

And with the help of this G concept, humanity can become a Type 1 civilisation and learn to control the weather and the galaxy! Talk about there being a demand for something! Now we are just waiting for the suppliers. No wonder that this guy that bystander referred to was happy to announce that, even though he had no real proof, he was still quite confident that reality on the smallest scale is two-dimensional!

Image
String theory can fix that!

Ann
Color Commentator

User avatar
rstevenson
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Posts: 2705
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Halifax, NS, Canada

Re: TR: Why Spacetime On The Tiniest Scale May Be 2-Dimensio

Post by rstevenson » Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:04 am

Nice picture Ann, though it seems to be (gasp!) almost entirely black and white. :shock:

As for Prof. Kaku, while he is without doubt a distinguished scientist, I think he gets the TV coverage because he's presentable, waves his hands well, and is willing to sound absolutely certain about whatever is on the program's agenda. I doubt if very many scientists can afford to be that certain in their public statements, yet the media demands certainty. Whether or not the expressed certainty ends up being correct is of little concern to the sellers of soap or, usually and depressingly, their audiences.

Rob

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 13867
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: TR: Why Spacetime On The Tiniest Scale May Be 2-Dimensio

Post by Ann » Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:34 am

Rob wrote:
Nice picture Ann, though it seems to be (gasp!) almost entirely black and white. :shock:
Well, that's what rain does to the world around you. It seems to cancel all color and turn the world black and white. That's why rain is so depressing!

Not that I don't realize that rain is necessary for the color of the world, for the green grass and the blue flowers and birds...
Ann
Color Commentator

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 18805
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: TR: Why Spacetime On The Tiniest Scale May Be 2-Dimensio

Post by neufer » Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:06 am

Ann wrote:
Well, wow. Professor Kaku certainly expresses a demand for string theory,
because it will give us a concept that I am not allowed to utter here,
but it begins with the letter "G".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku wrote:
<<Michio Kaku (born January 24, 1947) is an American theoretical physicist specializing in string field theory, a futurist, and a science communicator. He is a popularizer of science, a best-selling author and media presenter. Kaku was born in San Jose, California to Japanese immigrant parents. Reflecting on his childhood, he said:
  • 1) His grandfather had come to the United States to take part in the clean-up operation after the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake.

    2) His father was born in California, but received education in Japan, so spoke little English.

    3) Both his parents were put in the Tule Lake War Relocation Center, where they met and where his brother was born.
Kaku graduated summa cum laude from Harvard University with a B.S. degree in 1968 and was first in his physics class. He attended the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley and received a Ph.D. in 1972, and held a lectureship at Princeton University in 1973. During the Vietnam War, Kaku completed his US Army basic training at Fort Benning, Georgia and his advanced infantry training at Fort Lewis, Washington. However, the Vietnam War ended before he was deployed as an infantryman.>>
What a bummer :!:

During the Vietnam War, I too completed US Army basic training at Fort Benning, Georgia, and was scheduled to go to advanced infantry training at Fort Polk, Louisiana... but I was sent to White Sands Missile Range instead because of my B.S. physic degree from MIT.

Why did they send Kaku to advanced infantry training?
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 13867
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: TR: Why Spacetime On The Tiniest Scale May Be 2-Dimensio

Post by Ann » Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:18 am

neufer wrote:
Ann wrote:
Well, wow. Professor Kaku certainly expresses a demand for string theory,
because it will give us a concept that I am not allowed to utter here,
but it begins with the letter "G".

GORD?
Of course! If they had only had the sense to point out that you can make gords from particle accelerators!

Image

(And I guess that Michio Kaku is less of a professor than you'd think when he is interviewed like he was in those Youtube videos, eh?)

Ann
Color Commentator

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: TR: Why Spacetime On The Tiniest Scale May Be 2-Dimensio

Post by Beyond » Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:09 pm

neufer wrote: why did they send Kaku to advanced infantry training?
Maybe his BS was less than your BS??
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.

User avatar
bystander
Apathetic Retiree
Posts: 21593
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Oklahoma

CV: The Fine Structure Constant is Probably Constant

Post by bystander » Thu Oct 21, 2010 4:55 pm

The Fine Structure Constant is Probably Constant
Sean Carroll | Cosmic Variance | 18 Oct 2010
A few weeks ago there was a bit of media excitement about a somewhat surprising experimental result. Observations of quasar spectra indicated that the fine structure constant, the parameter in physics that describes the strength of electromagnetism, seems to be slightly different on one side of the universe than on the other. The preprint is here.
Remarkable, if true. The fine structure constant, usually denoted α, is one of the most basic parameters in all of physics, and it’s a big deal if it’s not really constant. But how likely is it to be true? This is the right place to trot out the old “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” chestnut. It’s certainly an extraordinary claim, but the evidence doesn’t really live up to that standard. Maybe further observations will reveal truly extraordinary evidence, but there’s no reason to get excited quite yet.

Chad Orzel does a great job of explaining why an experimentalist should be skeptical of this result. It comes down to the figure below: a map of the observed quasars on the sky, where red indicates that the inferred value of α is slightly lower than expected, and blue indicates that it’s slightly higher. As Chad points out, the big red points are mostly circles, while the big blue points are mostly squares. That’s rather significant, because the two shapes represent different telescopes: circles are Keck data, while squares are from the VLT (”Very Large Telescope”). Slightly suspicious that most of the difference comes from data collected by different instruments.

But from a completely separate angle, there is also good reason for theorists to be skeptical, which is what I wanted to talk about. Theoretical considerations will always be trumped by rock-solid data, but when the data are less firm, it makes sense to take account of what we already think we know about how physics works.
Taking a second look at evidence for the 'varying' fine-structure constant
PhysOrg | Lisa Zyga | 21 Oct 2010
A few weeks ago, a group of scientists from Australia posted a study at arXiv.org that showed evidence that the fine-structure constant may not actually be a constant. If the fine-structure constant does vary throughout the universe as their data seems to show, it would mean that the laws of physics also vary throughout the universe, with huge implications. But over the past few weeks, a few blogs by physicists not involved in the study have offered some early criticism of the authors' results.

In their study, which has been submitted to Physical Review Letters, John Webb from the University of New South Wales in Sydney and coauthors used data from two telescopes facing different directions to show that the fine-structure constant seems to be slightly different in the northern hemisphere than the southern hemisphere. Peering at the light emitted by distant quasars 10 billion years ago, and analyzing how the light was absorbed by old gas clouds during its travels, the physicists seemed to be detecting a shift in the fine-structure constant across the universe.

In their blogs, physicists Chad Orzel of Union College and Sean Carroll of the California Institute of Technology scrutinized this claim from different perspectives. Orzel looked at Webb, et al.'s plot of the quasar sources in the sky (shown above). In the figure, the symbols' colors indicate the sign of the constant's shift and their sizes indicate the strength of the constant's shift. Also, the shapes of the symbols indicate the telescope used: circles refer to the Keck telescope in Hawaii and squares indicate the Very Large Telescope in Chile. Triangles indicate that both telescopes made observations, and so the triangles are mainly in the middle regions.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 18805
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: CV: The Fine Structure Constant is Probably Constant

Post by neufer » Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:24 pm

Art Neuendorffer