1/29/2014

Einstein-Cartan Gravity: This looks real cool! It seems to solve a few problems, though the wiki page seems a little biased, perhaps? It combines classical spin with GR through affine torsion. In doing so it makes finite extent fermions and produces the correct intrinsic-orbital coupling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Cartan_theory
P
aper here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1588

Gravitomagnetic charge: From wiki, it looks like it’s just mass density…which is unexciting. Gravitomagnetism is cute though! Important “While Maxwell’s equations are invariant under Lorentz transformations, the GEM equations were not” also crazy “The analogy and equations differing only by some small factors were first published in 1893, before general relativity, by Oliver Heaviside as a separate theory expanding Newton’s law.[1]” Wiki
Relevant paper here: Acceleration of particles by black hole with gravitomagnetic charge immersed in magnetic field. It is worth noting from the abstract:
“The presence of the external magnetic field decreases the innermost stable circular orbits (ISCO) radii of charged particles.”

Stückelberg Portal:
The Stückelberg mechanism allows for U(1) symmetries to eat Axion-Like-Particles (ALPs) that arise in extensions of the SM. If you have couplings between Abelian fields and associated ALPs you need cancellations to occur or else there are anomalies in the low energy theory. There are several theories of DM that involve a totally different sector of particle physics and these particles would likely have U(1) connections. This is something I should look into more since it reminds me of the little I know about Kinetic Mixing. More: here and another similarly named paper.

Woods-Saxon interaction:
Pertaining to the Woods-Saxon potential, a radial potential of a slightly ugly form relevant in shell models of nuclear physics.
Bethe-Salpeter Equation:
Bound state equation for two-body particles, relativistically covariant….Nambu found it first, fun fact. Relevant to calculation things like positronium properties, excitons, quark-antiquark bound-states. Large mass difference? Treat light particle as a Dirac particle in the potential of the heavy particle. Derived with the poles of the S-matrix and related to the Green’s function and scattering processes.

Next is “A simplified differential equations approach for Master Integrals.”

Snowmass Papers I need to read:
Chapter 1, Chapter 6, Chapter 3,

Chromomagnetic Vortex:
This is going to be a mess. In some “popular” models the QCD vacuum is composed of entangled ‘chromomagnetic vortices’ which divide the vacuum into domain-like structures [wording stolen from paper sourced below]. The domains are so named because all vortices in a domain are oriented in space and in color, like how magnetic domains are or ordered by spin. Large scale randomization allows for Lorentz and color symmetries to be recovered in the IR regime [how?]. It’s called a ‘spaghetti vacuum’ for unclear reasons…there’s nothing stringy about these domains from the intro…Confinement comes from the infinite free energy of an isolated quark, this energy comes from the random phase variation across domains and the averaging over this phase.
The intro to the relevant paper is awesome and I’ll definitely read the rest to get to the spaghetti part later 🙂 Paper’s called: Fermion zero modes in a chromomagnetic vortex lattice 8 pages of awesome from what I can see…I’ll get around to Zero Mode Fermions later.

ST: 1 hour in, I think I’ll break for a little then continue for another hour. The progress made is almost all computational and I should really work on something more interesting for a bit.
X11 is mostly conquered for Cygwin using:
http://x.cygwin.com/docs/ug/using-remote-apps.html
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.unix.shell/LY7s1yXC09w
http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/4300/2012/7/30/7-9
I’ve also reached some conclusions about languages. I’m going to start Scheme then move into Clojure after I get into SICP some.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0262560992/?tag=stackoverfl08-20
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-5.html#%_chap_Temp_2
While I won’t be trying it any time soon, OCaml looks cool:
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/
Also interesting:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41058/is-the-cosmic-horizon-related-to-the-big-bang-event

HEP:
CalcHEP is *definitely* broken on this machine…I’ll need to do something about that later. Luckily the X11 support makes it visible when it breaks?
Organizing papers/reference material. References for original paper all together…I’ll look for a few more now!
I need to look at this… http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+CalcHEP/0/1/0/all/0/1
I want to go to CKM 2014…
Photran now installed via Eclipse

Other:
CHINESE NEW YEAR IS SO CLOSE!!!!!!!’
Grad School Apps: I fucked up bad. Real bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/55th_Annual_Grammy_Awards#Winners_and_nominees

Advertisements

1/28/2014

ST:
UGHHHasfjkahsdf 1.5 hours sunk…another .5 up trying to tie up some mess. UGH all that work and now mathematica mess.
A couple weeks back I put git on my list of things to learn more seriously…I’m beginning to regret not having done that sooner. Long story short Kranc wasn’t working and I had to fix some files by hand -.-‘
UGHH akjjhfjawf I reduced precision and now suddenly the code works ;-; What the actual ffffff alkjfhlksfhlsf 3 hours in today and I guess I got a thing or two productive done 😐 meh

HEP:
CF calculations are not working out well…I have worked out quite a bit, though. I think I’ll put about ~1 hr more into it later tonight to get up to about 4 hours. I think I may have found the problem but I need a working copy of X11 with Cygwin or another machine in order to check -.-‘ …not fun, not fun at all.

Math?:

Other:
Human After All is a decent album…too lazy/unknowledgable to critically expand on this. Read some, that was nice too.

Arxiv:
This is only going to be a list of the titles I read and found of interest from the past month or so. Tomorrow I’ll start cutting by abstract. After that introductions / conclusions. Hopefully I’ll get down to the interesting stuff by Friday afternoon. The image below is, clearly, just Hep-Ph. I’m also combing through Gr-Qc as well.

Progressing through the new year...I'm a bit behind.

Progressing through the new year…I’m a bit behind.

On The Arxiv – July 15, 2013

It’s been a while, and this post will likely be updated tomorrow to include more.

Here’s what I found of interest in gr-qc over the past couple days:
Relativistic Cosmological Perturbation Theory and the Evolution of Small-Scale Inhomogeneities. (arXiv:1106.0627v4 [gr-qc] UPDATED)

http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.0627

The title is so ridiculous I had to save it and read the abstract. I know there is a mathematical basis for it, but “Cosmological Perturbation Theory” is the kind of thing that makes me think “Good luck; have fun”

 

Updated constraints from the PLANCK experiment on modified gravity. (arXiv:1307.2002v1 [astro-ph.CO])

http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.2002

Contraints are good. This sets specific limits on the length-scale parameter B0 in f(R) gravity.
note: f(R) gravity is a family of theories in which we have different functions of the Ricci scalar appear in the Einstein-Hilbert action.

 

Impacts of Generalized Uncertainty Principle on Black Hole Thermodynamics and Salecker-Wigner Inequalities. (arXiv:1307.1894v1 [gr-qc])

http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1894

Saved because I was curious what some of the things involved are. Apparently you can relate the mess of generalized uncertainty principles to the lifetime of BHs among other things.
note: The Generalized Uncertainty Principle is denoted dp * dx = hbar/2 [ 1 + b0 (Lp/hbar)^2 (dp)^2 ]
b0? seems to allow for a minimum length slightly above the planck length if you take the Plank momentum as a maximum, I guess?
I should mention that Doubly Special Relativity [should investigate later] apparently uses a different Heisenberg relationship and the relation shown is typical in BH physics and applies in Str Theory. Similarly, a quadratic form has been used recently, it seems.
note: Salecker-Wigner Ineqs -the first appear to relate the uncertainty in position in one frame to the next, dx’ = dx + hbar*t/2m (dx)^-1…this is complicated from what I can tell and involves some concept of “coherence” in quantum gravity with respect to proper time [also not really an ineq?]; the second deals with the minimum mass of a quantum clock m >= k t_max/t_min^2 where k is some constant.

 

Universal Landau Pole. (arXiv:1302.4321v3 [hep-th] UPDATED)

http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.4321

Starts off the bat with big assumptions in the abstract… “Our understanding of quantum gravity suggests that at the Planck scale the usual geometry loses its meaning.”
But let’s go with that for now…
They suppose a unified fundamental interaction at Planck scale at the Universal Landau Pole where *all* couplings diverge, right, except QCD? I am too lazy to read this right now, but last I checked alpha_s fit the bill for a “gauge coupling”
Wait “at which all gauge couplings diverge. The Higgs quartic coupling also diverges while the Yukawa couplings vanish” what? maybe I need to see what the difference between a gauge and a Yukawa coupling is…
On the plus side, this supposedly fixes any instabilities in the SM vacuum, woo?

 

A Note on (No) Firewalls: The Entropy Argument. (arXiv:1211.7033v4 [hep-th] UPDATED)

http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.7033

“An argument for firewalls based on entropy relations is refuted.”
Clean & Simple. Not reading at the moment, but half-glad this is still going on.

 

A new limit on local Lorentz invariance violation of gravity from solitary pulsars. (arXiv:1307.2552v1 [gr-qc])

http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.2552

I’m not crazy about limit papers, but they’re important so I need to at least read the abstracts. Apparently, there are three parameters you can use to quantify local Lorentz violation in PN form. Going to strong-field we have alpha_2 which induces precession of pulsar spin around its direction of motion in the preferred frame. They contrained alpha_2. Limit is ~10^-9 which is better than the ~10^-7 Solar system limits, limit on alpha_3 is 10^-20 and alpha_1 is 10^-5 though I haven’t investigated why; in GR these numbers are zero.

 

A formal introduction to Horndeski and Galileon theories and their generalizations. (arXiv:1307.2450v1 [hep-th])

http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.2450

Curious what the things in the title are. Requirements for Galileons are outlined as: scalar field in flat space with field eq that are polynomial in second order derivatives of the field only. No higher or lower order derivatives…weird.

note: Galileons theories are a subset of Horndeski theories.
note on note: Horndeski action is given by
S = S_GG [gmunu, phi] + S_m [gmunu, psi]
SGG is over a mess of Lagrangians…it’s so ugly I don’t see the motivation. It’s sort of a generalization of Galileons in that it appears to stop at second order derivatives, but you have plenty of first order derivative terms.
Yuck.

more to come on this, then probably a quick run of my top papers from astro-ph and maybe hep-ph.

I guess we’ll see?

On The Arxiv – June 23, 2013 [and about three days back…]

This is going to be for the past several days, and as such it will be a little denser (and a little lighter, at random) than I would like…but here goes:

Forecasts for CMB μ- and i-type spectral distortion constraints on the primordial power spectrum on scales 8 < k < 10^4 Mpc^-1 with the future Pixie-like experiments

So I grabbed this one primarily for the “Pixie-like experiments” bit on the end of the title. To expand on this some, Pixie (The Primordial Inflation Explorer) is a “nulling polarimeter” for CMB observations. Effectively, its goal is to measure the gravitational wave signature of primordial inflation using the imprint of linear polarization on the CMB. The paper I found proposing the experiment was dated May 2011, but I’m not sure what progress has been made on the launch and usage of said device. If you’re wondering what the hell Fisher Matrices are [I was] wiki links you to “Fisher Information” and gives that as: “is the variance of the score, or the expected value of the observed information.” Informally, this is the amount of information an observable random variable contains about an unknown parameter which the probability of said variable depends on [wording borrowed heavily from here. On last thing, I was too lazy to look into “Silk Damping” but that is a great name for a thing. Note: The Polar Ionospheric X-ray Imaging Experiment (PIXIE), is a completely different Lockheed project.

The global electroweak Standard Model fit after the Higgs discovery

It is most definitely a good thing that even with our naive measurements of the “Higgs-like” particle we can over-constrain the SM and we get many predictions in excess precision of our measurements (W mass and weak mixing angle). S, T, U parameters, huh? Apparently these “oblique parameters” are lower order observables which quantify deviations from the SM. There are higher-order extensions called V,W, and X as well. I’d like to note that the authors find “no direct signs of new physics” which is a blessing, and a curse. Might be worth looking at what they have to say at the end of the paper about what the ILC would best shine light on.

Parametrizing the exoplanet eccentricity distribution with the Beta distribution

This paper basically makes the case its title states. Beta functions are a pretty general family of PDFs definite by two parameters, alpha and beta. Basically, they find that a beta distribution fits the distribution of eccentricity much better than the (traditional?) “next best” model of a Rayleigh + Exponential distribution. Kind of worth noting: Beta distributions are uniquely determined over their domain…not surprising, but good to know. Also, they got an 11.6 sigma confidence that “short-” and “long-” period planets are described by distinct Beta distributions. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to look into this distinction, but that is a massive confidence so I find the result surprising.

How well do we know the Halo Mass Function?

So Halo Mass Functions (HMF), I believe, are literally the number of a given Halo Mass observed, often with a curve for each redshift. LCDM models constrain Omega_M and in turn constrain the actual HMF. The author’s note that the normalization (Sigma_8 ?) has a strong impact on the high mass region of the HMF and our poorer limits on this parameter produce subsequently limited HMF constraints. Cool to note: The HMF measurements are close to the “scatter” in HMF fitting functions…so Cosmology is at a point where they need ~’NLO’~ calculations of theoretical HMFs in different models; at least, that’s how I interpreted the situation.

Tests of the asymptotic large frequency separation of acoustic oscillations in solar-type and red giant stars

I don’t have much to say about this other than that I’m still surprised that people study Asteroseismology. Not only that, it’s cool that there’s interesting mathematical physics (asymptotic theory) associated with the field. The long story short with this paper is that more careful analysis showed they weren’t too far off in the first place 😛

Chameleon Field Theories

So, I thought this might be a bit fringe/quacky reading over the abstract the first time…but I think I was wrong. Chameleon is a *great* name for a thing, and I’m glad we have more things with cool names in science. More seriously, this field theory represents and odd but interesting idea, that the mass of a particle could be coupled to the ambient matter density. These self-interacting fields do weird things and have a “rich phenomenology” as the author states. Fortunately and Unfortunately, we know a few important things about them: they can’t account for the observed cosmic acceleration and they’re almost within reach experimentally. Probably a dud, but a cool one!

The Scale of Dark QCD

As opposed to my preferred theory of DM (see here), the authors here propose a strong dynamics which might bind together dark matter and examine how it would relate to QCD. Supposedly, the can explain the baryon / dark baryon asymmetries in this manner. I have not read this paper yet, but I am interested in their questionable claims. Naturally, they consider a subset of particles which interact under both “QCDs” and I’m curious how this might work. Something I might keep track of, for sure.

NPOI Observations of the Exoplanet Host kappa Coronae Borealis and Their Implications for the Star’s and Planet’s Masses and Ages

So I only have one thing to say about this paper: it looks like useful but boring shit. Excuse me, two things: it looks like it was an undergraduate project. I’m not implying that undergraduates don’t produce useful things or anything silly like that, I’m just surprised this got published. The abstract outlines what they did and it seemed kind of, well, trivial? I’m sure it took some time…but I feel like it was just a series of standard, boring calculations one after the next. 😐 color me unimpressed. Note: I think I’m right, given the lack of affiliation on the second author. Totally could have been an REU project.

Complex Spinors and Unified Theories

This was sort of a surprise. It’s actually a paper from the 1979 Supergravity workshop…so it’s not exactly new, but I would really like to look into this. Outdated and probably not a good direction for research, but looking at families of symmetries isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Population III Star Formation In Large Cosmological Simulations I. Halo Temporal and Physical Environment

Totally grabbed this one since I’ve met some people on it, will read for Cosmic Coffee.

Search for a standard-model-like Higgs boson with a mass in the range 145 to 1000 GeV at the LHC

While we think we have the Higgs, we don’t know much about it and I think it’s a good thing that CMS has put out a detailed review on the state of our Higgs searches with mass 145 GeV and upwards. The additional exclusion (up to 710 GeV at 95% CL) isn’t anything terribly exciting, but it’s nice to see.

Towards the rotating scalar-vacuum black holes

I thought we’d solved this problem already? Well, apparently the author found the approaches in the literature prove to be invalid and that we are missing solutions. May want to look into this later to sort out exactly what they’re claiming.

That’s the majority of the stuff, for now.

Unfortunately my feeds are such that I’ll probably have a several day old paper in my next post….oh well.