Quantum Graffiti: MEDIA COVERAGE, JOB OPENINGS & Gossip Around Loll at Utrecht

[marcus]

Peter Woit flagged a talk by Eric Laenen about theoretical physics in the Netherlands


http://www.nikhef.nl/recfa/Presentations/RECFAEricLaenen.ppt

it is in powerpoint but somehow my computer digested it and produced something I could read. of particular interest were pages 14 thru 18.

Theoretical physics in the Netherlands and how the different institutes and researach programs fit together and what are some important developments. Helps to put Utrecht in perspective with other Dutch universities.

 

[marcus]

That talk Peter Woit mentioned, by Eric Laenen, on the organization status current activity of theoretical physics in the Netherlands---here is Eric Laenen
http://www1.phys.uu.nl/wwwitf/fotopagina's/Medewerkers/Eric.Laenen.htm

A few posts back I mentioned that Hanno Sahlmann (who was postdoc at Penn State) is now postdoc with Loll at Utrecht

Artem Starodubtsev (who was working with Laurent Freidel at Perimeter) is now also postdoc with Loll at Utrecht

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~loll/Web/group/group.html


Also there is Joe Henson---I thought he did causal sets. Perhaps I am confusing him with someone else.
[EDIT: yes he has been at UC San Diego and worked in causal sets and coauthored with Rafael Sorkin]

 

[marcus]

here's an update:

schedule for October's Loops 05 conference is here:
http://loops05.aei.mpg.de/

Here is an imperfect keyword search for CDT papers that have come out in the past 12 months. It can get non-CDT papers by mistake.

http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1...gravity+AND+Lorentzian+quantum/0/1/0/past/0/1

I believe there is a paper in the works by Loll with Dario Benedetti and Francesco Zamponi.

Here is Loll's group:
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~loll/Web/group/group.html

Here are some snapshots mostly from the Utrecht Inst. of Theor. Physics:

http://www1.phys.uu.nl/wwwitf/fotopagina's/foto's/Renate.jpg

http://www1.phys.uu.nl/wwwitf/fotopagina's/foto's/Willem1.jpg

http://www1.phys.uu.nl/wwwitf/fotopagina's/foto's/Dario.jpg

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~helios/commissies.php#kas (Jaap)

http://cgpg.gravity.psu.edu/people/igpg_hsahlmann.shtml .



here is the whole staff of the Utrecht ITP (inst. theor. phys.) where Loll and co-workers and many of her students are based.
http://www1.phys.uu.nl/wwwitf/Members/members.staff.htm

Here is Loll homepage:
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~loll/Web/title/title.html

A clear brief non-technical description of CDT approach, written by Loll for general audience is here
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~loll/Web/research/research.html

A survey article commissioned by Contemporary Physics for wide audience ("The Universe from Scratch") is here
http://arxiv.org/hep-th/0509010

CDT coverage in press here:
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~loll/Web/press/press.html

We have a PF a thread polling people's predictions about whether the QG path integral including sum over topologies will prove extendable from the 2D case up to 3D and 4D. the thread is here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=81626

Hanno Sahlmann is listed as postdoc at Utrecht. Here is his earlier web page, describing his research interests, with sketches of ideas, from when he was at Penn State:
http://cgpg.gravity.psu.edu/people/igpg_hsahlmann.shtml .

Also Artem Starodubtsev, who coauthored with Smolin while at Perimeter, and with Freidel.
To find Artem's page at Perimeter go here
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/people/index.php
click on "graduate students", advance to the second page.

Also Joe Henson, I believe he has been working in causal sets and and has coauthored with Rafael Sorkin and Fay Dowker. I think Henson was most recently at the physics department of UC San Diego.


I have not heard anything about the location of next year's Loops 06 conference but I think it will be at Utrecht.

Remember that Ashtekar (whom one is used to identifying with Penn State) is going to be at Utrecht at least for half of 2005-2006 academic year. He is teaching a black holes course there in the spring term. It would be a reasonable choice with such a confluence of QUANTUM GRAVITY researchers (nonperturbative, background independent QG of course ). So maybe they will have it there, who knows?

this url is for the Spinoza Institute
http://www1.phys.uu.nl/spinoza/People/Members.html
this is for the Utrecht ITF
http://www1.phys.uu.nl/wwwitf/Members/members.staff.htm

 

[marcus]

It's good to hear such positive things about Utrecht. I'm one of the students who enrolled in the Master's programme in Theoretical Physics in Utrecht this year. And I really enjoy the courses taught at the moment (QFT, Statistical Field Theory, GR) and I'm looking forward to next semester's courses (Cosmology, String, Black holes, Standard model, etc.). Certainly I will attend Ashtekar's course next semester.
Keep up the good work, Marcus! Your announcements are really useful.

Thanks for the encouragement Timbuqtu,

I have something in Dutch that I would like to see (at least portions of) in English. It just came out this month in the Utrecht University weekly newspaper Ublad.

Think if you might consider picking out one or two paragraphs and translating them. I would greatly appreciate the help. This is the article,
from the 13 October issue of Ublad (vol 7 no. 37)

http://www.ublad.uu.nl/WebObjects/UOL.woa/4/wa/Ublad?id=1022717

HERE IS A PART THAT I WOULD SKIP, AT THE BEGINNING

Renate Loll (43) werkt nu vier jaar in Utrecht. In die tijd heeft ze zich ontpopt tot eminent wetenschapper en een enthousiast pleitbezorger voor meer vrouwen in de wetenschap. Ze kreeg drie miljoen euro uit Brussel voor een Europees netwerk en sleepte eind vorig jaar een vici-premie van 1,25 miljoen euro in de wacht. Geld genoeg om te blijven zoeken naar de heilige graal van de fysica.

HERE IS A PART HALFWAY DOWN THAT I AM CURIOUS ABOUT:

Waarom heeft een Duitse onderzoeker een aanstelling aan een van de gerenommeerde Max Planck Instituten in haar geboorteland eigenlijk verruild voor een positie als universitair hoofddocent in Utrecht?

Loll: "Ik ben in eerste instantie naar Utrecht gekomen, omdat ik hier een vaste aanstelling kon krijgen en wellicht op termijn hoogleraar kon worden. Maar ik heb zeker ook voor Utrecht gekozen vanwege de reputatie van dit instituut en vanwege Gerard 't Hooft. Niet dat ik nauw met hem samenwerk, want Gerard werkt met niemand samen. Zijn wonderbaarlijke kracht is zijn volstrekt individuele stand alone manier van denken. Hij is superkritisch en uiteraard zijn we het lang niet altijd eens over het probleem van de quantumgravitatie, maar wat ik heel bijzonder vind is dat hij niet alleen naar colloquia en seminars gaat, maar ook naar praatjes van masterstudenten en daar met hen in discussie gaat. Noem mij maar eens een andere Nobelprijswinnaar die dat doet dat. Gerard maakt echt deel uit van the spirit of the place. Dat maakt het extra motiverend om hier te werken."

Timbuktu, you see what I am getting at. It has a quote that looks possibly interesting. I would be glad if you, or anyone here who speaks Dutch, would translate.

 

[Timbuqtu]

I read this article last week. Here are the translations you requested (don't mind my English):


Renate Loll (43) has been working in Utrecht for four years now. She has become an eminent scientist and an enthousiastic advocate for more women in science. She received three million euro from Brussels for a Europian network and also a vici-prize of 1.25 million euro last year. Enough money to keep searching for the holy grail in physics.

########

Why did a German scientist swap an appointment at one of the renowned Max Planck Institutes in her native country for a position as senior lecturer in Utrecht?
Loll: "Initially I came to Utrecht because I could get a permanent appointment and possibly later become a proffesor. But I certainly also chose Utrecht because of the reputation of this institute and because of Gerard 't Hooft. Not that I closely cooperate with him, for Gerard doesn't work together with anyone. His remarkable power is his totally individual stand alone way of thinking. He's very critical and we of course don't always agree on the problem of quantum gravity, but what I find very special about him is that he does not only attend colloquia and seminars, but he also visits talks by master students and he participates in their discussions. You name me another Nobel prize laureate who does such things. Gerard is really a part of the spirit of the place, which makes it extra encouraging to work here."

 

[marcus]

I read this article last week. Here are the translations you requested (don't mind my English):
Renate Loll (43) has been working in Utrecht for four years now. She has become an eminent scientist and an enthousiastic advocate for more women in science. She received three million euro from Brussels for a Europian network and also a vici-prize of 1.25 million euro last year. Enough money to keep searching for the holy grail in physics...

thanks! I will try to extend this using Babelfish. I will just tack on some more sentences to what you have already:

UPDATE: a translation of the whole article into English is now at
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=796410#post796410

-------this is what we started with earlier today: some improvements have been made----
"There were years of struggle until I first got the idea that what many theorists had lost sight of was the need to include causality---cause and effect---in the picture at very small scale. So I put that in as an absolute requirement in my calculations. then I worked for several years with a Danish and a Polish colleague to work out the consequences of that idea.

And it succeeded, because in an article last year we showed that a realistic four-dimensional universe does indeed arise, under the condition of causality, from miniscule bits of four-dimensional quantum-foam.
I can still remember vividly how it felt when we saw that that outcome appearing. It was a magical moment."

The article by Loll and her colleagues was received worldwide as a breakthrough on the way towards a better grasp of the structure of spacetime. It is still a question in many people's minds whether it offers insight into the long-awaited theory of quantum gravity.
It is clear however, that the leadership at the Spinoza Institute made a good bargain, with this appointment.
Why did a German scientist swap an appointment at one of the renowned Max Planck Institutes in her native country for a position as senior lecturer in Utrecht?
Loll: "Initially I came to Utrecht because I could get a permanent appointment and possibly later become a professor. But I certainly also chose Utrecht because of the reputation of this institute and because of Gerard 't Hooft. Not that I closely cooperate with him, for Gerard doesn't work together with anyone. His remarkable power is his totally individual stand alone way of thinking. He's very critical and we of course don't always agree on the problem of quantum gravity, but what I find very special about him is that he does not only attend colloquia and seminars, but he also visits talks by master students and he participates in their discussions. You name me another Nobel laureate who does such things. Gerard is really a part of the spirit of the place, which makes it extra encouraging to work here."

 

[marcus]

Dimitri Terryn, a physics Masters student at Brussels
Vrije Universiteit has kindly supplied a full translation into English of this article by Eric Hardeman from the 13 October issue of Utrecht's university newspaper, the Ublad (vol 7 no. 37):
http://www.ublad.uu.nl/WebObjects/UOL.woa/4/wa/Ublad?id=1022717
The article is a two-page profile of Renate Loll.
Thanks to others, Timbuqtu and Andre, who also took part in what became for a short time a PF group effort.
Dimitri's original post is at
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=797984#post797984

Looking for the holy grail

Renate Loll is looking for movement in the smallest particles

Renate Loll (43) has been working for four years in Utrecht. During that time she has become an eminent scientist and an enthusiastic advocate of women’s involvement in science. She has received more then three million Euros from Brussels for a European network, and last year she got a 1.25 million Euro vici-grant. More than enough money to continue looking for the Holy Grail of physics.

A vacuüm that isn’t empty; spacetime that consists of little pieces of foam; and our three-dimensional universe that is a four-dimensional one. The reality that Renate Loll is studying, is full of paradoxes and contradictions. In her office in the Minnaetbuilding the German shows understanding for the confusion of her interviewer. “It’s not easy to explain what my research consists of. Very concisely put, I am looking for the structure of spacetime, but in order for you to understand what I mean by that, you first need to distance yourself from the common sense view that we live in a space of three dimensions, where a clock ticks in the same way for everyone. For our daily lives this is a very useful assumption, but Einstein has made it clear to us exactly one hundred years ago with his theory of relativity that there is no strict fundamental separation between space and time. Something that someone sees as a piece of time, another sees as a piece of space. Actually we live, according to Einstein, in a fourdimensional reality: spacetime.”

“Suppose that we would investigate spacetime with an imaginary microscope. You would expect that on very small scales, beyond the last known elementary particles, there would be an absolute void. But quantum theory, that was developed in the twenties in order to explain what happens on this very small scale, tells us a very different story. According to this theory the vacuum is in reality an extensive “sea” , where particles are constantly created and destroyed. These so-called quantum fluctuations happen on scales that are millions of times smaller than the size (10^-19 m) of quarks, the smallest known elementary particles. We still do not have a precise idea of how they behave themselves, but it appears that on the so-called Planck scale of 10^-35 m they begin to deform spacetime itself. It’s not easy to determine this experimentally. Our particle accelerators will never be able to show us what happens on such a small scale, and the theory of relativity does not say anything about what happens on this scale.”

In fact, the great and still unresolved paradox in modern physics is that there are two theories, that both decribe in a very elegant manner a part of our physical reality. They are however based on so different principles that they are utterly incompatible. For many years theorists are looking for the holy grail of physics, the so called theory of quantum gravity that will resolve this paradox by describing the behavior of large structures in the universe (explained by relativity) and that of the smallest particles (explained by quantum theory) in the same framework.

Among physicists there is the commonly-held view that the key to this theory lies in an adequate description of the structure of spacetime, but the solution is being sought in many different directions. Many colleagues of Renate Loll think that superstring theory is the best candidate to reconsile relativity with quantum theory, but she sees more promise in an approach that does not make it nescessary to assume that there are more than four dimensions.

“I try to build a model that describes both on the quantum scale as on the larger scale the structure of spacetime in an accurate way. Now it is believed that on the smallest scale that there are high energy fluctuations, that spacetime is curved to a high degree there. But that is only conceivable if we assume that it is extremely warped or even ripped apart in uncountably many pieces of so-called quantum foam. The big problem is that there is no theory that can explain how the sum over all those little shards of quantum foam gives us our nice continuous four dimensional reality on macroscopic scales. All attemps to formulate such a theory have failed until now. Sometimes the sum gave us a two dimension world, sometimes it came out as a world with infinitely many dimensions.”

“Years ago I first got the idea that maybe the problem lay in the fact that many theorists had lost sight of the requirement that at those very small scale there must also be a notion of causality, of cause preceeding effect. I took this to be an absolute condition for my calculations. After that, I have worked for years with a Danish and a Polish colleague to calculate all the consequences of that idea. And succesfully, because last year we showed in an article that computersimulations on the basis of minuscule pieces of quantumfoam, under the condition of causality, we indeed got a four dimensional universe. I can still remember vividly how it felt when we saw the outcome of the calculations appear. That was a very magical moment.”

Loll’s article has been received worldwide as a breakthrough towards a better understanding of the structure of spacetime. If it also offers prospects towards the long awaited theory of quantum gravity, is for many people still an open question. It is clear however that the management of the Utrecht Spinoza institute have made a good move in approving here. But why did a German researcher let pass an appointment at the reknowned Max Planck institutes in her native country in favour of the position of professor at Utrecht?

Loll : “I went to Utrecht in the first place because I could get tenure and a probably a professorship soon. But in part I also chose for Utrecht because of the reputation of this institute and because of Gerard ‘t Hooft. Not that I work closely with him, because Gerard does not work with anyone. His wonderful strenght is his utterly individualistic stand alone way of thinking. Hij is extremely critical and naturally we do not always agree on the problem of quantum gravity, but what I find very special is that not only does he go to colloquia and seminars, but also to the talks of masters students and discusses things with them. Name me one Nobel Prize winner who does that. Gerard truly is part of the spirit of the place. That makes it extra motivating to work here.”

In the four years since her appointment in Utrecht, Renate Loll has shown herself to be not only an eminent scientist, but also an enthousiastic advocate for a higher degree of women in science. “Women’s position is very important to me. I find the situation in the exact sciences in the Netherlands absolutely shocking. In Germany things were pretty bad, but it’s much worse here. Not only is the thought that girls could be good at exact science completely absent. Worse is that there isn’t even a realisation that there is a problem. My male colleagues are very dear to me, and it’s not that they are opposed to women, but they have no idea how masculin the system is in which they function and how it disadvantages women.”

As coordinator of the so-called Enrage (European Network of Random Geometries) network of the European Union Renate Loll has found a way to give female scientist a little support, she tells us. “It’s about a network of scientist who use the same geometric techniques that I use in QG in different fields. One of the goals of the network is to increase the participation of women in the exact sciences. You can have different views on Europe, but the EU has some very enlightened ideas about women in science. They are more progressive in Brussels then in any of the member states”

“In all European programs attention for women’s position is an explicit criterion. But did you think that anyone cared about it? Usually it comes down to writing somewhere at the end of a sixty page research proposition by the way, we have someone in our network who is responsible for the women. Completely ridiculous. In my network I’ve been trying to integrate this more. Of the thirteen groups in Enrage we have three where women play a prominent role. I gave all three of them an extra PhD grant.”

Renate Loll herself has had to conquer obstacles herself. “I was one of those young girls that was pulling radios apart, to see how they work but I had to think long about what I was going to do at university. Then I thought : Why not take up physics, it could never hurt. My parents were fine with this, but from the rest of my environment I got little or no support, not only during my studies but afterwards as well. I really had to struggle as a woman to make it in science. That I only got a permanent position at age 39 says a lot about that.

Superstring Theory

According to superstring theory the most elementary particles in the universe do not consist of points, but of a kind of vibrating ellastic bands, whose vibrations manifest themselves as particles, like electrons or photons. Although the theory initially seemed to be a promising candidate to bridge the gap between relativity and quantum theory, it seems to be more and more clear that the theory has her own share of problems. The most serious complication is that according to this theory our world is part of a ten dimensional universe, without us noticing in our everyday lives. Possibly is our threedimensional universe floating through higher dimensions, in the same way as a two dimensional flying carpet is flying throug three dimensional space, separated from a shadowworld that may be only a few tenths of a milimeter away, as Spinoza winner Robert Dijkgraaf recently decribed.

Altough Renate Loll is careful with her formulation as to not antagonize any of her colleagues, it is clear that she does not think much of this line of research. “Initially, superstring theory looked to be very simpel and therefore attractive, but graduately there emerged more and more complications, making me to find it quite a far fetched theory now. In addition it is unclear wether the string approach will lead us somewhere. That’s why I favour my own approach. That at least has produced some concrete results.”

Gerard ‘t Hooft, just like Renate Loll, isn’t at all convinced by string theorists. But whether the approach of his colleague from Utrecht is correct, is still a question according to him. “It is clear that Renate has made progress the last few years, but she’s not there yet. It’s even a question whether she is on the right track concerning QG. Although personally I tend to look in the direction of black holes, I think that string theory still has the best hand. We have hit a number of obstacles, but none the less is that approach still more concrete and structured than other attemps to reconcile GR and QT. But that doesn’t mean that Renate couldn’t be right. My philosophy is, let everyone muddle on. She should continue with what she is doing, because the resolution of this problem will probably come from an unexpected direction.”

 

[marcus]

the last time I mentioned this was post #79

this thread is to keep track of the news/current events/essential links about Loll triangle gravity. (CDT path integral)

in other words it's basically for CDT gossip----that means Utrecht, Loll's group and related matters.
There was some favorable comment about CDT on SCI.PHYSICS.RESEARCH earlier this month. I will copy a Baez post in here. It is short and sweet.
The context was that someone named EvT started a thread about how are things going in various approaches to QG. On 3 October Baez posted this:
----quote---
27. John Baez Oct 3, 4:55 pm
In article <20050905174410.33275.qm...@web32010.mail.mud.yahoo.com>,
EvT <vantu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>According to some physicists (for instance John Baez
>and Peter Woit), both string theory and loop quantum
>gravity have not made much progress recently.
>How active are other approaches like noncommutative
>geometry, euclidean quantum gravity, discrete
>approaches (Lorentzian, Regge calculus, ...), twistor
>theory, topos theory, supergravity, Ads/CFT, emerging
>properties (Robert Laughlin)...?
Ultimately what matters most is not whether an approach
is "active", but whether it's getting somewhere. A big
bandwagon can make a lot of noise just by spinning its wheels
in the mud.
As far as I'm concerned, the one approach that's making
the most progress now is Causal Dynamical Triangulations,
which is a variant of the Regge calculus.
Not many people are working on this yet, in part because
it requires computer simulations, and most researchers
in quantum gravity still prefer pencil-and-paper work.
But, the results so far are impressive. They've numerically
simulated quantum gravity, and found something surprising:
their spacetimes act 4-dimensional at large scales but
2-dimensional at small scales!
The three main people working on Causal Dynamical Triangulations
are Ambjorn, Jurkiewicz and Loll. Here's a nice simple review
article:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0509010
and here's a more technical one:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0505154
Sophisticated work on perturbative quantum gravity by Lauscher,
Reuter and others adds evidence for this idea that quantum gravity
makes spacetime effectively 2-dimensional at short distance scales.
For a review with lots of references, try:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0508202
So, technically speaking, the old problem of the nonrenormalizability
of quantum gravity may be solved by an ultraviolet fixed point of
surprising kind!
Of course I'm optimistic that this 2d small-scale behavior
is ultimately due to a spin foam model: imagine a bunch of
"soap bubbles" (2d surfaces) forming a "spacetime foam" that
mimics a 4d continuum at length scales much larger than the
Planck length. But, this is just speculation at this point.
I hope there will be some discussion about this idea when I
talk about it at Loops '05 next week, where Loll will also be
speaking:
http://loops05.aei.mpg.de/
------endquote------
http://groups.google.com/group/sci....bb106e7a2f9/3bece53891b06e6d#3bece53891b06e6d

John Baez gave one of the invited talks at this month's Loops conference and his talk is available online at his website. The talk is more complicated than this statement here. I'm quoting it because someone whose views are a good guide in Quantum Gravity is saying where the progress is happening and he does not make a complicated statement of it, he simply says that as far as he's concerned what's making the most progress is CDT.

 

[marcus]

Today I saw a related post from Baez at Not Even Wrong. In this post he answers the riddle of why we didnt immediately hear an announcement that Loops '06 would be held in Utrecht. It looked like an obvious choice that next year conference of NONPERTURBATIVE QUANTUM GRAVITY research would be in Utrecht. It has people there from several of the main QG lines of development and it hasnt hosted such a conference whereas other major QG centers have.

----quote----
John Baez Says:
October 24th, 2005 at 9:38 pm

dan said:

will there be a Loops ‘06?

Probably; the idea of calling it Loops ‘05 was to make this an annual thing. However, we need someone to agree to run Loops ‘06 - and I don’t think it’s going to be me!

Some obvious possibilities include Penn State, the Perimeter Institute, and Marseille, but they’ve all run conferences like this quite recently. So, Mexico and Utrecht are being mentioned.

I’m not sure Renate Loll will want to run something called Loops ‘06, since she considers her own approach - causal dynamical triangulations - quite distinct from loop quantum gravity, and more successful! Personally I think this year’s conference should have been called something like QG ‘05, since there were talks on almost every approach to quantum gravity. Or maybe NOT VERY MUCH STRINGS ‘05.

Anyway, we’ll see what happens.

dan said:

incidentally, shouldn’t all LQG researchers work on the semiclassical limit problem, for if it doesn’t reduce to GR, then it is not a viable theory of QG?

I think all loop quantum gravity researchers should work on this problem. That’s why I keep talking about it every time I get a chance! I spoke about it at Marseille, at the Perimeter Institute, and at Loops ‘05. However, it’s hard to get people to work on a very hard problem, when there are easier problems out there.

Similarly, I think all string theorists should be working on a background-free approach to this theory, and on finding a way for it to make specific predictions about particle physics. But at any given moment there are lots of easier things to do.
-----endquote-----

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=279

 

[marcus]

Job openings at Utrecht

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~loll/Web/jobs/jobs.html

postdoc openings
Loll has announced some job openings recently. She has one or more postdoc positions starting "Autumn 2006 or earlier". She is asking for applicants who have some experience with Monte Carlo computer simulations as well as knowledge of quantum gravity.

They are not yet taking applications. It says there will be an official announcement in EARLY NOVEMBER, at the above "jobs" URL, and this will also give the deadline and details on how to apply.

predoc openings
Also there will be at least one more PhD student slot starting in 2006, where you get teaching work to do and some support for up to 4 years. Applications for that can be submitted NOW. It is explained how to apply:

"Applications, preferably in electronic form (text-, postscript- or PDF-format), can be submitted at any time to loll@phys.uu.nl with subject line "QG predoc 'your name'". The application should consist of a cover letter, CV, transcripts of university grades and degrees, a statement of research interests and reasons for undertaking doctoral research at the ITP, as well as the names of at least two senior scientists who are in a position to judge the applicant's suitability for a PhD in theoretical physics. Applications will be considered until the position is filled."

It sounds simple to apply for the "PREDOC" position, but to get it one would probably need the right combination of qualifications. She seems to need people with experience with Monte Carlo simulations because there is a lot of computer work to be done. If one had a Masters in Statistical Physics and also the right computer background----I am just guessing----one might have a chance. Exciting place to be right now, if one can get invited to the party.

 

[marcus]

A new graduate student has joined Loll's group. He is Pedro Machado, a PhD student from Copenhagen NBI (niels bohr inst.)

 

[marcus]

postdoc openings
Loll has announced some job openings recently. She has one or more postdoc positions starting "Autumn 2006 or earlier". She is asking for applicants who have some experience with Monte Carlo computer simulations as well as knowledge of quantum gravity.

They are not yet taking applications. It says there will be an official announcement in EARLY NOVEMBER, at the above "jobs" URL, and this will also give the deadline and details on how to apply.
...

applications are now being taken for one or more postdoc positions in Loll's group.
directions about how to apply are at the jobs webpage
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~loll/Web/jobs/jobs.html

the deadline for applications is January 2006

"...preference will be given to young researchers with expertise in Monte Carlo simulations, one of the backbones of the approach of Causal Dynamical Triangulations..."

===================================

For anyone interested in Causal Dynamical Triangulations it would be worth listening to the recording of the talk by Martin Reuter 12 October at the QG conference. Because Reuter's approach (assymptotically safe renormalization) has some significant points of agreement with CDT (microscopic fractal-like 2D structure of spacetime) but also significant differences. The second half of Reuter's talk discusses the contact made between his approach and CDT.

Here is Reuter's abstract page with links the slides and the recorded talk
http://loops05.aei.mpg.de/index_files/abstract_reuter.html

the video recording of the talk
http://loops05.aei.mpg.de/index_files/Video/reuter.wmv

the slides/lecturenotes
http://loops05.aei.mpg.de/index_files/PDF_Files/reuter.pdf

the slides serve as complete notes for the lecture, and go very well together with the talk.
there were no technical problems with the recording of this talk.

however with Loll's talk the same day the audio sometimes goes out. Here is a link
http://loops05.aei.mpg.de/index_files/abstract_loll.html

 

[marcus]

Loll's talk of 18 November 2005 at Perimeter Institute is quite good.
It is organized and clear and gets a complete overview of CDT into 45 minutes. Technically the recording worked out better than it did at Loops '05.

This link should get the video and the slides, in a split screen format, to run in synch.
on the Emergence of Spacetime in Quantum Gravity
split screen slides and video
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute....rType=WM64Lite&mode=Default&shouldResize=true
Allow a few minutes for it to download, before it starts to play. You shouldn't have to do anything except click on it.

If the link doesn't work for any reason, try going to the menu:
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute....fa7-485f-8d5d-3b62fb7d3e4c&shouldResize=False

scroll down the sidebar menu on the left and click on
"Emergence of Spacetime Workshop", which gives a
page with recordings of 6 talks. Loll's is
"Emergence of quantum spacetime from causal dynamical triangulations"

Some PF posters, like Spin_N, have already watched many of these PI recorded talks and know about the exceptionally good format----which I only just found out about.

Loll's talk was part of a 3 day workshop. I assume the essential thing of this weekend workshop was not the 40 minute talks on the first day, but the discussions between the 6 visitors and Perimeter people over the next two days.

 

[marcus]

another Dutch treat (BYOT--bring your own translation)

this thread is for news and gossip about the QG scene at Utrecht, and esp. Loll's group

BTW Loll just gave a seminar talk at Göttingen on 13 December, I think some QG research interest is germinating at that university.

We have another Dutch text from the Utrecht newspaper "Ublad"
http://www.ublad.uu.nl/WebObjects/UOL.woa/2/wa/Nieuws?id=1023382

Looks like Loll or her team has been nominated for an annual Dutch science-communication prize

Loll kanshebber Academische Jaarprijs

Prof.dr. Renate Loll is de Utrechtse kanshebber op de eerste Academische jaarprijs. Een jury maakte vrijdag bekend welke projecten in aanmerking komen voor de prijs voor de beste vertaling van wetenschappelijk onderzoek naar een breed publiek.
De Universiteit Utrecht had zeven wetenschappers laten meedingen naar de prijs van 100.000 euro, een nieuw initiatief van NRC Handelsblad in samenwerking met NWO en KNAW. De jury vond dat het voorstel ‘waarom bestaat de ruimte uit drie dimensies?’ van Renate Loll, werkzaam op het gebied van de theoretische fysica, de beste Utrechtse inzending was.

De wetenschappers was gevraagd een plan te maken om de waarde en relevantie van excellent wetenschappelijk onderzoek duidelijk te maken aan het Nederlandse publiek. De inzendingen mochten zeer verschillend van aard zijn, zo kunnen er plannen zijn voor tentoonstellingen of voor lesprogramma’s.

Voor elke universiteit is nu een project aangewezen dat kans maakt op de hoofdprijs. Op de slotmanifestatie op 1 juni wordt de winnaar gehuldigd. De winnaar mag het geld gebruiken om zijn of haar ideeën te realizeren.

-------
thanks to FLORINE for this lead! she is a physicist at utrecht who has a blog
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~fmeijer/wordpress/
-----
it is interesting that in Holland a scientist could get a prize for how clearly and accurately they COMMUNICATE their work to the public. I don't think that they are rewarding work like Brian Greene which confuses and excites---it is not a advertizing prize but more an education prize. I think. If it is a prize for responsible communication to the public about science, not for geewhiz hype, then I think it is a good idea. Scientists should do more of that. so it should be recognized and good performance honored.
---------
HERE IS WHAT THE CRAZY BABELFISH SAYS

Loll kanshebber academic Jaarprijs
Prof.dr. Renate Loll are the Utrechtse kanshebber on the first academic jaarprijs. A jury made Friday confessed which projects qualify for the prize for the best communication of scientific study into a broad public.
The university to Utrecht to seven scientists would have let compete to the price of 100,000 euro, a new initiative of NRC trade booklet in association with NWO and KNAW. The jury found that the submission "Why does space consist of three dimensions?" by Renate Loll, working in the field of the theoretical fysica, was the best Utrechtse entry.

NICE BABELFISH LINK:
http://www.systransoft.com/index.html

 

[marcus]

this thread is for news and gossip about the QG scene at Utrecht, and esp. Loll's group

...thanks to FLORINE for this lead! she is an experimental physicist at utrecht who has a blog
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~fmeijer/wordpress/
...

each of the competing teams will prepare a WEBSITE WITH A BLOG
the competition between the different entries (from each of a dozen Dutch universities)
has just begun, so the Utrecht entry doesn't have much at their site yet

http://www.academischejaarprijs.nl/utrecht/

When the websites are up, if you want you can GO TO THIS SITE AND VOTE:

http://www.academischejaarprijs.nl/nl/index.php

a vote for Utrecht in the poll is a vote for Loll's team as doing a good job explaining their research results to the general public.

Personally I would vote for Loll because i think those people do a good job in explaining to the public what they are doing, and they do it in a solid way with less hype and more integrity.

also check out Florine Meier's blog
so far she showed good taste in poetry, for a physicist.
scientists should have blogs----the practice should be encouraged
here is Florine's homepage at the Center for Science Education
http://www.cdbeta.uu.nl/instituut/medewerkers.php?id=23
I gather she is a theoretical physicist, by training, who has specialized in how to teach physics in Dutch schools---quantumphysics in particular. Here again is her blog
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~fmeijer/wordpress/

the Dutch are not bad in physics education. Gerard 't Hooft has a website with a great set of online materials for the aspiring young physicist. One of the best physics reading lists I've seen.

 

[marcus]

the dutch call this website science communication contest
(teams from 13 universities competing) a "Battle of the Universites"

frankly, as a serious mathematician, I can't see how Loll could stand being involved leading a website development team, in a "competition" even.

here is the menu of the 13 websites:
http://www.academischejaarprijs.nl/nl/weblogs.php

hmmm the sites are all supposed to be BLOGS

maybe Loll can delegate the work to her master and PhD students
but she is trying to make creative physicists out of them in a short time, it could be frustrating to have a distraction like this Battle.
one does not want to waste one's students time.

However it could be very interesting if the Loll CDT team put up a lot of COMPUTER GRAPHICS of spontaneously selfcreating and evolving spacetimes-----by Monte Carlo----and of RANDOM WALKS being taken in these randomly generated assemblages of building blocks

showing a graphic of a random walk could communicate the idea of how they measure the dimension of random simplicial manifolds. one sees how easy it is for a wanderer to get lost and never return----averaged over all the places he can begin his walk----and the lower the dimension the harder it is for him to get lost.

the website of the Utrecht team could have some amusing graphics and perhaps animations or visual stories.

thinking up these graphics and animations could acutally help the students learn CDT and understand it better, so it would not be totally wasted time

I also like "Monte Carlo moves" very much. there is a menu of just a few moves and one can entirely transform a simplicial complex by doing these moves one after the other, as one shuffles a deck of cards by repeating simple shuffle operations. I wonder if they could put up an interactive visual teacher of the Monty Moves----say in 3D

If I remember the 4D moves are almost the same or analogous to the 3D, so it is very helpful to be able to picture 3D.

Anyway, at present the Utrecht team does not have anything at the site but there is still a lot of time before the judges or whoever decide

 

[marcus]

...
here is the menu of the 13 websites:
http://www.academischejaarprijs.nl/nl/weblogs.php
...

here is all it says, so far, at the Utrecht team's blog
http://www.academischejaarprijs.nl/utrecht/

24 december, 2005
Welkom op onze weblog!
Welkom op de weblog van het team van de Universiteit Utrecht. Momenteel genieten we van onze vakantie, maar het is de bedoeling dat de weblog begin januari echt van start gaat. Tot dan!
----------------

because of similarity between Dutch and English it is not hard to guess what it means:Welcome to our blog!
Welcome to the weblog of the team of Utrecht U.
At the moment, we enjoy our vacation
...[I can't guess the next few words]...
that the blog really starts off [goes from start] beginning January.
'Til then!

-------------
Guess I'd better check my guess with Babelfish.
http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr

Babelfish says:
"Welcome on the web-unwieldly of the team of the university Utrecht. At present we enjoy our holiday, but it is the intention that the web-unwieldly beginning January real of start goes. To then!"

===========================
BTW here is a link for Utrecht ITF (inst. theor. fysik)
http://www1.phys.uu.nl/wwwitf/

here are the two seminars that Loll organizes
http://www1.phys.uu.nl/wwwitf/Seminars/Grafiti.htm
http://www1.phys.uu.nl/wwwitf/Seminars/Quist.htm

you can see what various people have been giving talks about: Hanno Sahlmann, Joe Henson, Frank Saueressig, Artem Starodubtsev

some of the titles have links to abstracts---but not to slides or video (as in Perimeter case)

here are upcoming seminars at Utrecht ITF, probably an incomplete list
http://www1.phys.uu.nl/wwwitf/seminars.htm

the ITF is organized in two programs

The research In the Utrecht Institute is organized in two programs:

Quantum Gravity, Strings and Elementary Particles (QGSEP)

Condensed-Matter Theory, Statistical and Computational Physics

"QGSEP Mission statement

The main areas of research of the program are quantum gravity, quantum field theory, string theory and - since 2004 - cosmology. A common theme of much of our work is the investigation of nonperturbative properties of fundamental physical theories at very high energies, with and without supersymmetry. This concerns physical phenomena at or near the Planck scale, which cannot be adequately described by studying fluctuations around flat space-time. Within recent years, new conceptual insights, accompanied by the development of new mathematical tools, seem to have brought us closer to an understanding of the physics at these very small distances, although a complete theory is still lacking."the institute has some snapshots of people, and some homepages online. anyone interested can poke around and see what there is:
http://www1.phys.uu.nl/wwwitf/People.htm

==============

Hanno Sahlmann just won the annual physics prize of the German Academy of Sciences at Göttingen. I saw earlier that he gave a talk at Göttingen in mid-November but I didn't know the occasion for the talk was receiving the prize.

 

[marcus]

Today the Utrecht team began to compete for the prize in the Dutch "Battle of the Universities"

they have posted their first page of their pedagogical competition website---which is to be about Quantum Gravity and especially the triangulations path integral approach being developed at Utrecht.

It strikes me as curious that an obscure line of research like this could compete against a dozen other university websites with possibly more accessible and readily visualized topics! I wonder can Utrecht catch up with the others----several of the other teams have already been putting up stuff for several weeks (a month I think) and have gotten many votes.

I wonder what Utrecht will put up on their site, and if it can make an impression. Well, as usual I will try to use BABELFISH to translate what the Dutch webpage says:

======original=========

Welkom op de weblog van het team van Renate Loll. Wij zijn jong, gevarieerd en gemotiveerd en op deze weblog zullen we u de komende maanden meevoeren naar de diepste krochten en langs de grootste mysteries die ons universum te bieden heeft. Ons onderwerp? Heeft u zich wel eens afgevraagd waarom de ruimte 3 dimensies heeft? Hoe zijn ruimte en tijd eigenlijk ontstaan? Kan het zo zijn dat de ruimte om ons heen, die zo gauw bekeken leeg lijkt, toch een diepste structuur heeft? Met andere woorden: wat is dat ding eigenlijk dat wij ruimte noemen?

Iedereen kan dit soort simpele vragen stellen. Wat velen echter niet weten is dat deze vragen een grote rol spelen in de zoektocht naar een van de laatste missende verbindingen in het hedendaagse onderzoek naar de fundamentele werking van de natuur. Het probleem is dat men geen idee heeft hoe het universum beschreven moet worden op de kleinst denkbare schaal. Theorieën die op astronomisch grote schaal, op menselijke en ook op atomaire schaal perfect hun werk doen, spreken elkaar tegen wanneer ze elkaar ontmoeten op de kleinste schalen die ons universum kent. Er is een massale zoektocht ingezet naar een theorie die dit gat zou moeten opvullen, een theorie die nu door het leven gaat als de kwantumtheorie voor de zwaartekracht.

De onderzoeksgroep van Renate Loll en haar collega’s is bezig met het ontwikkelen van zo’n theorie. Zij construeren ruimte en tijd uit kleine driehoekige bouwstenen. Dit wiskundige model heeft als ultiem doel een goede beschrijving op te leveren van hoe ons universum werkt op de kleinst mogelijke schaal.

Een van de grote doorbraken van de theorie was dat ze op grote schalen een ruimtetijd laat zien zoals wij deze kennen (3 ruimte- en 1 tijdsdimensie). Sindsdien heeft haar theorie vele subsidies in de wacht gesleept. De laatste en meest verbazingwekkende resultaten zijn dat het universum waarin wij leven op de kleinste schaal juist niet noodzakelijk vierdimensionaal is, maar dat hoe verder je inzoomt op een klein stukje ruimte, hoe meer het er op begint te blijken dat er slechts 2 dimensies overblijven.

Ons team bestaat uit 7 enthousiastelingen. Renate Loll is hoogleraar in de theoretische natuurkunde. Willem Westra is derdejaars AIO en werkt samen met Renate aan deze theorie. Sweitse van Leeuwen en Arjon van Lange zijn actief als bestuursleden van de studievereniging A-Eskwadraat. In ons midden hebben zich ook drie tweedejaarsstudenten zo moedig getoond zich in het stof der ruimtetijd te bijten, te weten Philip Klop, Quirine Krol en Egbert Rijke (natuur- en wiskunde).

De komende maanden zullen we stap voor stap afdalen naar de onmetelijke diepten, in de verbazingwekkende, maar bovenal die prachtige woeste zee van ruimtetijd, waarvan steeds meer verrassende aspecten aan het licht zullen komen. We zullen de weblog gebruiken om u de verhalen te vertellen achter een van de grootste zoektochten binnen de natuurkunde van vandaag, we zullen u vertellen hoe het er allemaal werkelijk uit ziet en vragen waarop u misschien niet eens het antwoord verwachtte zullen helder uitgelicht worden, en tot slot zal langzamerhand duidelijk worden wat u allemaal te wachten staat. Houd ons dus in de gaten!
============================

 

[marcus]

here is the first draft of the translation from dutch to english:

Welcome on the weblog of the team of Renate Loll. We are young, varied and motivated and on these weblog we you will sail too the coming months to the deepest krochten and along the largest mysteries universum has us which to offer. Our subject? Why has the space 3 sometimes wondered you dimensions has himself? How do its space and time in fact arise? Can it be this way that the space for our gone, which examined this way rapidly empty seems, nevertheless a deepest structure has? In other words: what is that thing in fact that we call space? Everyone can ask simple couples to this type. What many however do not know is that these questions play a large role in the search to of the last missing connections in the contemporary study into the fundamental functioning of nature. The problem is that one has no idea how the universum must be described on the smallest conceivable scale. Theories which do on astronomically large scale, at human and also on atomic scale perfectly their work, speak each other against when they meet each other on the smallest scales which our universum has. A massive search has been used to a theory which this breach would have fill up, a theory which goes now by living as the kwantumtheorie for the gravitation. The research group of Renate Loll and its colleagues are busy with developing such a theory. They construct space and time from small triangular construction toes. This mathematical model has as an ultimate aim a good of producing description of how our universum works on the smallest possible scale. Of the large openings of the theory was that she let's a space time know on large scales see such as we these (3 spaces - and 1 time dimension). Its theory has dragged a lot of subsidies in the guard since then. The last and most surprising results are that the universum in which we live on the smallest scale correctly not necessary four-dimensional is, but that how further you zoom in on a small bit space, how starts more it there on appear that dimensions there only 2 remain. Our team exists from 7 enthousiastelingen. Renate Loll are hoogleraar in theoretical physics. Willem Westra are derdejaars AIO and cooperate with Renate to this theory. Sweitse van Leeuwen and Arjon van Lange is active as governing board members of the study association AES². In our middle Second year students also three this way in the substance of the space time to bite itself, namely know have bravely shown Philip Klop, Quirine Krol and Egbert Rijke (nature - and maths). The coming months we will descend inch by inch to the immense depths, in the surprising, but above all that splendid savage sea of space time, of which more and more surprising aspects will come to light. We the weblog uses will tell the tales you behind of the largest searches within physics of today, we will tell you how it sees all really and asks on which you perhaps not even expected the answer will clearly be taken out, and finally gradually clear will become what you all to wait state. Watch us therefore!

=========
note that Krol means "caterwaul" and so babelfish translated the name of one of the team members

this is not bad, congratulations babelfish for saying this:

above all that splendid savage sea of space time...

the dutch original does not have such force:
"maar bovenal die prachtige woeste zee van ruimtetijd"

 

[marcus]

mygod the team is young!

look at Quirine Krol

and
Philip Klop

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~sons/erg

 

[Pietjuh]

I'm from the Netherlands, so I will try to give a translation of the text. But beware, my english grammar isn't that good as you guys

--------------------

Welcome to our weblog:

Welcome to the weblog of the team of Renate Loll. We are young, varied and motivated and on this weblog we shall take you the next few months to the deepest places and along the biggest mysteries our universe has to offer us. Our subject? Have you ever wondered why space has 3 dimensions? How where space and time actually created? Could it be that the space around us, which at a glance seems empty, has a deepest structure? In other words: what is it that we call space?

Everyone could ask these kind of simple questions. What many do not know however, is that these questions play a big role in the search to one of the last missing connections in contemporary research on the fundamental workings of nature. The problem is that no one really knows how to describe the universe on the smallest possible scale. Theories that work perfectly on astronomical scales, on human and on atomic scale, contradict each other when they meet at the smallest scales which exist in our universe. There's a massive search started to find a theory which should fill up this hole, a theory that's now called quantum gravity.

The research group of Renate Loll and her colleagues works on the development of such a theory. They construct space and time out of small triangular building blocks. The ultimate purpose of this mathematical model is to give a good description on how our universe works at the smallest possible scale.

One of the greatest break-throughs of this theory was that it showed a spacetime we knew on large scales (3 space and 1 time dimension). Since then her theory has collected many fundings. The last and most awe struck results are that the universe we live in doesn't neseccary have to be 4 dimensional on the smallest scale, but the more you zoom in on this small piece of space, the more it starts to like there are only 2 dimensions left.

Our team consist of 7 enthousiasts. Renate Loll is a professor in theoretical physics. Willem Westra is a third year PhD and works together with Renate Loll on this theory. Sweitse van Leeuwen and Arjon van Lange are active as members of the board of the student association A-es kwadraat. In the middle we also have 3 second year students, brave enough to try to study spacetime, namely Philipe Klop, Quirine Krol and Egbert Rijke (physics and mathematics).

In the following months we will descend step by step into immense depths, into the most amazing, but foremost into the beautiful wild sea of spacetime, from which more and more surprising aspects will come to light. We shall use this weblog to tell you the stories of one of the greatest voyages in physics to this day, we shall tell you what it really looks like, and questions on which you might even haven't got a clue, shall be clearly explained, and it should be clear by now what's in store for you. So watch this site!

------------------------

There is also a famous wheatherman in the netherlands called Erwin Krol. But I don't they are family.

 

[Pietjuh]

mygod the team is young!
look at Quirine Krol
and
Philip Klop
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~sons/erg

It's not that those 2 are already doing the heavy stuff. They are only second year students. In Utrecht I see it's the case where they have to follow a course for which they have to do a small research project in one of the research groups at the university, but which is really simplified, but still very interesting for them.

 

[marcus]

I'm from the Netherlands, so I will try to give a translation of the text. But beware, my english grammar isn't that good as you guys
...
There is also a famous wheatherman in the netherlands called Erwin Krol. But I don't they are family.

Pietjuh your english grammar is fine (at least by my simple standards!) that is a highly readable translation. THANKS. it helps to have a real translation instead of babelfish

About one of the team, called Quirine Krol, there is a dutch professional SCULPTOR by the name of Krol. I think perhaps it could be Quirine's mother. It doesn't matter except that in some kind of physics it could help to have a very strong 3D imagination and memory, as one might inherit from a scuptor parent.

Perhaps you should visit their site
leave them a message. They are already answering the blog at:

http://www.academischejaarprijs.nl/utrecht/

In other Utrecht news, Joe Henson, most recently from California, now a postdoc working for Renate Loll, has posted his first SOLO research paper on arxiv and gotten it accepted for publication.

He posted it today
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0601069
Constructing an interval of Minkowski space from a causal set
Joe Henson
8 pages, one figure; accepted for publication in Classical and Quantum Gravity Letters
"A criticism sometimes made of the causal set quantum gravity program is that there is no practical scheme for identifying manifoldlike causal sets and finding embeddings of them into manifolds. A computational method for constructing an approximate embedding of a small manifoldlike causal set into Minkowski space (or any spacetime that is approximately flat at short scales) is given, and tested in the 2 dimensional case. This method can also be used to determine how manifoldlike a causal set is, and conversely to define scales of manifoldlikeness."

In the past, Joe has co-authored with Fay Dowker and Rafael Sorkin among others.

 

[Chronos]

Chess is four dimensional, so this does not seem to be a terribly complicated contest.

 

[marcus]

Another translation job

the climate for Quantum Gravity seems to be subtly different in Europe from what it is in the USA. Earlier we had a translation of an interview with Hermann Nicolai in the German newspaper DIE ZEIT (analog of the NY Times)

One reason to keep track of the general audience press is to understand better the surroundings and situation of the European QG community (Loll at Utrecht, Rovelli at Marseille, their groups, and others).

Today Peter Woit had links to a couple of new things in German.

Here is DIE ZEIT interview with Martin Carrier, philosopher of science.
http://zeus.zeit.de/text/2006/05/N-Interview_Carrier

Here is a DIE ZEIT article by Max Rauner
http://zeus.zeit.de/text/2006/05/Kosmologie

 

[marcus]

preliminary rough translation by babelfish

Out!
Physics is in the crisis: The dream of the world formula burst, the new theories is hardly more examinable. Does it at all still concern in the cosmology science?

by Max Rauner

Free love, LSD, anti-war demo. Leonard Susskind took part in all that "and still more", as he stresses. Afterwards it became a physics professor at the American elite university Stanford, in the heart remained it a rebel. Now Susskind wrote a book, which shifts its colleagues in riot. If it keeps right, is physics at the end. Or completely at the beginning.

Originally Susskind was taken off to find the world formula a all-comprehensive theory, which describes the Big Bang just like the nano-world. For a long time it waehnte itself close to. With the most brilliant physicists and mathematicians he developed the stringer theory in the eighties, the best candidates for a world formula. Before six years the hope of the physicists got a first tear, when it showed up that this theory supplies many solutions almost infinitely. Now Susskind Ernst makes: In its book it postulates The Cosmic Landscape the fact that the theoretical solutions are not an excrescence of mathematics but to material in each case would correspond existing university verses.

However would be called: There are innumerable other worlds beside our well-known universe – and in everyone this own laws of nature apply for university verses. Thus however the search according to the world formula would be led ad absurdum. More badly still: Whether actually it exists to other university verses or not, leaves itself practically to never examine. And then the question arises whether such a physics can be considered at all still as natural science.

No miracle that among physicists a violent discussion was inflamed. In the controversy it goes over the relationship of theory and reality, over coincidence and necessity, physics and Metaphysik. Go around exploding, shrinking, and one on the other hitting worlds – and around the question whether the physicists have still all cups in the cabinet

To the cosmological offense now a heavy depression comes

Cosmological principle debates shook always also the self understanding of humans. Before 500 years Nikolaus Kopernikus fell the geocentric conception of the world and set the sun into the center of the universe. Driving out of the navel of the world described Sigmund Freud later than "cosmological offense" of mankind. Soon it became clear that the sun is only one star in the backyard of the Milky Way and the Milky Way only one of but billions other galaxies in the universe. The fact that the physicists doubt now also still the however position of our universe appears there only consistent.

According to Susskind we live "in an infinitely small bag in an enormous Megaversum". Our world would be therefore only a kind philanthropic niche, besides however gives it innumerable other university verses. Some of them are empty and boring, others exist for a few milliseconds, a hand fully stars, planets and even lives brought out. This conception of a multi or mega+verse around gives it of course longer. New it is however that meanwhile not only a few philosophically inspired crank in it believe, but to a certain extent the guidance elite of theoretical physics. Leonard Susskind, and other one with it, is anyhow safe itself: If philosophers and physicists look back in one hundred years, they will describe the today's time as that period, in which the concept of the only universe was replaced in favor of the conception one multi-verse around.

But if Kopernikus’ Theory an offense was, is the Multiversum a heavy depression. Thus mankind would pull itself back on a completely insignificant, coincidental island in the cosmic ocean. Us only the comfort remains that there are nevertheless organisms on this island, which are intelligent enough to argue about it.

Scientifically seen, that is hauptproblem of this conception however their examinableness: From where are we to know whether the theory of the multiple worlds is actually correct? Even if there were many other university verses really, we could never throw a view of it. Still is science? Or does physics thereby approach the Esoterik, in which much is only maintained, but nothing proven or refutable is? The philosopher Karl Popper set up once to the maxim that scientific theories should be so constituted that one disproves it in principle, therefore falsifizieren can. If one gives this guiding principle up, a grundpfeiler of the natural science comes into the wanken.

The criticism at Susskinds theses is accordingly hard. "I consider the beginning dangerous", say Paul Steinhardt of the Princeton University. "the science would come to a depressing end." The stringer theoretician Brian Greene feared, the idea can hold scientists to look for more deeply lying explanations. And the cosmologist Lee Smolin of the perimeter of institutes in Waterloo, Canada, grumbles: "Lenny Susskind errs, and he will see that he errs." One can present gladly ideas, "however if one a theory has, which predicts neither something avowedly nor something, then stops one making science."

But the multi-verse around theory has just as prominent advocates. "our whole universe is a fruitful oasis within multi-verse around", says the astrophysicist Sir Martin Rees, president of the venerable British Royal Society. Andrei lime tree of the Stanford University, to which its colleagues sometimes with charm-cheat maintains, already simulated the Multiversum on the computer and placed pictures of it on its Website ("Kandinsky Universen"). Even the Nobelpreistraeger steven vineyard, a solid, highly estimated theoretician, shows up openly. "I am not convinced yet of the Multiversum, but I take the possibility seriously."

The controversy was overdue. Because with all success physics to today no answer to the fundamental question has: Why is the world straight so constituted, how we find it? Or, in the words of Einstein: "could God have created the world also differently?" In the meantime we know that laws of nature and natural constants are so finely adjusted that the smallest deviations would have fatal consequences, anyhow for the existence of humans. But an explanation of this be astonished-worth phenomenon physics did not come more near.

Until today two large theories stand next to each other like marriage partners, who sleep in separate beds: _ Einstein relativity theory and the quantum theory. With the one can one space, time and cosmological structures compute, with the other one the behavior of atoms and elementary particles. Both are extremely efficient in their range, but they do not find simply to each other. In the Big Bang they fail, too extremely are conditions in the Big fear for. And why light is fast approximately 300000 kilometers per second and a hydrogen atom weighs straight 1.67 time 10-27 gram, the theories cannot explain also. Dozens of such natural constants must insert the physicists quasi by hand into the equations.

"as young physicists hoped I to find beauty and elegance in the laws of nature", remembers Leonard Susskind. As his father as plumbers shifted the pipes, right-angled, parallel, somehow aesthetically, then he imagined physics. "instead I found a depressing disorder." That was end of the sixties. In the seventies the situation improved, in the Achtzigern became the physicists euphorically. A new theory made hope, it for them described elementary particles no longer than punctiform particles, but than swinging strings or threads. These stringers are too small, in order ever directly to be observed to be able (approximately 10-33 centimeters), but with this trick could mathematical infinities in the equations be avoided. Even the gravitation strength from relativity theory found its place in the abstract thought building. So far however the stringer theory is so complicated that many characteristics lie multi-verse around in the dark. For example it postulates eleven dimensions, by which some are microscopically "rolled up", so that we notice only three space dimensions.

Michio Kaku compares the stringer theory in its new book in the parallel universe with a small, beautiful pebble, which the physicists find with a migration by the desert: "as we the sand aside sweep, state we that it concerns in reality the point of an enormous pyramid, which lies buried under tons by sand. After decades we discover mysterious hieroglyphics, hidden chambers and tunnels. A daily we will penetrate on the lowest level and the gate will finally up-push."

Which formulates Kaku so blumig, is the dream of the world formula. But that is now burst – says Susskind, which in the meantime a white beard and a Halbglatze decorate: "the beauty became the beast." After Susskinds computations the stringer theory has at present 10500 solutions, which is practically infinite. Until Susskinds appears book The Cosmic Landscape on German, still some powers of ten at university verses could come. Instead of talking from a pyramid to, the Stanford professor sketches now the picture of a boundless imaginary landscape, which our cosmos same. In this landscape there are mountains, valleys and hochebenen. And in each valley another universe lies. Some look like ours, most exist only briefly, before in the valley again a new universe is born. Only unfortunately: One does not come from a valley into the other one. Whether actually exist to possible other university verses, one can never determine.

Such not examinable theories drive the physicist Lee Smolin the cold sweat on the forehead. If physics gives the principle up of the examinableness, then Smolin warns, comes it into the proximity of religious theories as for instance the creation teachings of intelligently the Design. "the danger lies directly before our entry door", says Smolin. The catholic church again the many world theory is not religion compatible enough. Thus the Viennese cardinal Christoph beautiful fount geisselte with his much considered attack on the evolution theory in the past year explicitly also the hypothesis of the Multiversum. It contradicts the overwhelming vouchers for purpose and Design of nature.

If there are sufficient university verses, one of it must be habitable

Hard-boiled physicists such as Steven Weinberg leave such church attacks cold. "it is beautiful that cosmology is now also getting a little of the attention, which evolution theory enjoys these days" comments Weinberg (the expression of beautiful sounds sarcastic. Straight one on atheistisch gesinnte scientists such as Weinberg exercises the speculative thesis of the Multiversum a special attraction. They struck themselves so far in vain with the question around, to bring out why the cosmos seems as created, in order stars, planets and sometime also intelligent life. The almost unbelievable fine tuning of the natural constants in favor of a habitable universe dissolves in the multi-verse around theory however in well-being favours. According to it the existence of a philanthropic universe is a pure consequence of the statistics: Under 10500 university verses must be simple ours thereby, six correct ones as somebody in the Lotto taps, if enough people along-play. Martin Rees compares the Multiversum with a large dress business. "if the selection of dresses enough is large, is not not surprised we to find something fitting" – indeed our own universe.

Could God have created thus the world also differently? Yes, the multi-verse around theoreticians answer and set still one drauf: It used its clearance extensively. Stupidly only that this conception leads to an almost inflationary arbitraryness in the description of the reality.

How thus does it continue in physics? Who not so that contently give may myself the fact that either our universe is pure coincidence or the dear God has all straight so hang-curved, as we find it, has the choice between three possibilities.

The principle hope. Finally is the stringer theory still for a long time not finished, perhaps the physicists somewhat surveyed. "it is much too early, to give up", says Princeton professor Paul Steinhardt, who set up its own theory of an eternally returning, cyclic universe. Who knows, perhaps still everything turns to the good one at the end, and an extended stringer theory describes a daily exactly a universe, i.e. ours.

The escape forward. We existed really accept, the Multiversum. Then are appropriate for other university verses outside of our own, and even the best telescope could never see it. Perhaps but other forecasts can be derived from the theory, which one could examine a daily, at least in our universe, empirically. At the European research lab CERN in Geneva 2007 the Large hadron Collider (LHC) is to go into enterprise. Perhaps this gigantic particle accelerator finds a reference to the hidden space dimensions, which the theory predicts.

Finally the possibility of the mistake remains. "the stringer theory is simply and simply wrong", believes for example Peter Woit. The mathematician of the Columbia University in New York operates the anti-stringer Web log emergency even wrong and demands: "a correct theory should have a limited number of solutions." As alternative candidates for such a theory some researchers discuss the loop quantum gravitation in such a way specified, which is developed among other things at Albert-Einstein-Institut in potsdam. According to it space-time from tiny pellets is developed. It gets along without the many dimensions and university verses of the stringer theory. The problem is bare: Also this theory supplies so far no empirically examinable forecasts.

After 2500 years physics seems again arrived at the beginning

German physicists play almost no role in the heated debate over the Multiversum. Perhaps the Sozialisation of the Bronx is missing to them, where Leonard Susskind and Steven Weinberg attended the same High School. But in this country philosophical analysis is maintained. R. Hedrich of the University of Giessen got a request at the German research council granted, in order to arrange the arguments of the physics debate. Who calls the philosopher, classical music in the background hears. "the theory of the Multiversum is reasonable in its logic", says Hedrich, "however not reasonably enough to be around science." The research program reminds it of that the Vorsokratiker in the old Greece: It is "metaphysical thinking about nature".

Did physics arrive with it after 2500 years again with its beginnings? Lee Smolin, joint founder of the loop quantum gravitation, swears to its colleagues not to go to the multi-verse around theory on the glue: "the progress of the science in the last 400 years is based on a few ethical basic rules, and Falsifizierbarkeit is one of it." One must absolutely maintain Poppers requirement of the refutableness in principle. Leonard Susskind is there fundamental different opinion: "follows property scientific practice no abstract set of rules, which for us a few philosopher prescribes, maintains" he in a hostile exchange with Lee Smolin on the Website edge.org. Smolin plays itself like an arbitrator over good and bad science up. "the natural science is the horse, which pulls the truck of philosophy. Do not let us the truck before the horse stretch."

Smolin has by the way its own theory of the universe. University verses could come as baby university verses in black holes to the world and afterwards a kind Darwin selection process subjected be. That is even refutable, insures Smolin, by the observation of neutron stars so mentioned. But again different researchers doubt that.

"Hypothesis non fingo", said Newton, I make no hypotheses. His current professional colleague is less restrained. It almost seems as if inventing new universes serves as pastime, or a kind of finger exercise, until the LHC finally starts operating. However, simply to dismiss the bizarre world-pictures of the cosmologists and stringer theoreticians however simply as craziness would be too easy. "As long as no one has a better idea, one must keep trying this," says the Giessener philosopher of Reiner Hedrich, even if the premise seems paradoxical, "trying out, even knowing that it doesn't work this way."

Until the cosmologists have again firm soil under the feet, one will have to be content provisionally with another measure for the reliability of a theory: Royal Society president Martin Rees would BET HIS DOG on the thesis of the Multiverse, and Andrei Linde of Stanford University would even bet his life. And Steven Weinberg announced in November in an essay with the title Living in the Multiverse, he has already has enough confidence in the theory, "to bet both Andrei Linde's life and Martin Rees’ dog on it".

THE TIME 26.01.2006 NR.5

05/2006

 

[marcus]

rough babelfish of the interview

"there the familiar categories dissolve"

With the conception of infinitely many universes did Physics cross the border into Metaphysics? A discussion with the science philosopher Martin Carrier

DIE ZEIT: How many universes do you believe in personally?

Martin Carrier: One!

DIE ZEIT: Can you prove its uniqueness?

Carrier: No, but to me the earlier conception of a universe seems more reliable than what is accepted by stringer theoretician. Every one of their innumerable solutions would correspond to its own universe.

DIE ZEIT: Why do you doubt the stringer theory?

Carrier: There is a set of quality criteria for scientific theories. For instance the explanation of up-till-now not understood experiments and the forecast of new phenomena. The stringer theory fares there rather badly, because it – so far at least – simply offers no connection to concrete, understandable experiences.

DIE ZEIT: May one call then still natural science? Or did physics thereby cross the border into Metaphysics?

Carrier: We no longer make the strict distinction between science and Metaphysics, that used to be made in former times. Often there have been theories, which at first did not seem testable – but which sometime later achieved great empirical success. Take for example the conception of atoms: It was around since the ancient Greeks, but only after 1800 was it successfully confirmed by facts. Therefore one should hold back oneself with categorical statements about it, which now is strictly scientific and which not.

DIE ZEIT: Nevertheless there must be criteria for good and bad science.

Carrier: Surely. Those are quality benchmarks such as explanatory and predictive power, which I just mentioned. There is today a whole spectrum of such requirements, and one judges the efficiency of a theory by how well it fares on this multiple scale.

DIE ZEIT: That applies also to religiously motivated theories as for instance for the Christian creationism?

Carrier: Exactly. We do not say: "that is not science." Separate we determine: The explanation achievement of the creationism – which fossil finds or mismatchings of organisms concerns – pitifully badly, the reliability is miserable.

DIE ZEIT: Could be said not also about the stringer theory?

Carrier: Yes and no. Their explanation achievement is indeed rather poor. On the other side it that could still change. Also the kinetic heat theory in 19. Century was terribly unsuccessful long time. The theoreticians afterwards-ran only the experiences and tried to build somehow well-known phenomena into their theory to – exactly like the stringer theoreticians today. Only as 1905 Einstein the Brownian molecular movement explained, new effects was predicted, and thus their break-through succeeded to the theory.

DIE ZEIT: According to stringer theory the world has eleven dimensions. That understands nevertheless no more humans.

Carrier: The demand for understanding bar of modern physics is unfortunately futile nostalgia. It is correct that whole classical physics up to the beginning 20. Century of the idea was certain, the world was understandable. But this conception failed with quantum physics. The bizarre world of the quanta is completely unanschaulich, and the more we into it penetrate, understand we them the less.

DIE ZEIT: But perhaps it is only one question of the time, until we understand it.

Carrier: Reliably the understanding develops itself further. Take only the revolution of the Coperinican conception of the world. Which the contemporaries had at that time for difficulties to imagine a movement of the earth. Those could not notice it nevertheless at all! Also the further arsenal physical dimension such as atoms or fields blew up the imaginative power of a layman – today that is more or less common property/knowledge. But we did not digest the paging of quantum physics yet. There the familiar article categories dissolve, and we do not find appropriate terms for it.

DIE ZEIT: Is there a realization border in principle for humans?

Carrier: In the long run we do not know whether the world is understandable. Most physicists assume that the science successfully describes the reality and that we approach to the basic modules of the world. At the end the science would exhaust nature to a certain extent. It would be in addition, conceivable that behind each level of apparently elementary things a still more fundamental level opens itself.

DIE ZEIT: What do we make with a theory, which refers to innumerable further university verses, without being able to make them accessible for the experience?

Carrier: There is a way out. We take general relativity theory: Also we can examine their philosophy, the Geometrisierung of the gravitation, not directly. But we measure their consequences – Red shift, clock slowing down – and believe therefore also in the basic principle. We think ourselves capable of even statements about it, which happens, if an astronaut falls into a black hole – even if we that will empirically never be able to examine.

DIE ZEIT: We accept, we would be in the middle in a scientific revolution, like at times of Copernicus or Einstein. What could we notice that?

Carrier: That is difficult to say. It takes every now and then decades, to scientific pagings in the scientific community recognition is often still longer and, until it accepts the public. Darwinism was accepted only a half century after the formulation by Darwin in the science. Sometimes revolutions are also broken off, and one returns to old conceptions. Contemporaries notice frequently nothing from the revolutions, which take place before their eyes.

DIE ZEIT: Could we be with that infinitely many universes likewise? Will this conception our grandchildren appear completely natural?

Carrier: That would be possible. Perhaps the stringer theory comes sometime to meaningful successes, and then – history will show – one could accept quite also consequences, which are not accessible to the direct experience. But in any place we need a confirmation. Never in the history of the science a theory was accepted, which would have brought not also empirical progress.

Max Rauner and Ulrich Schnabel were the interviewers.

DIE ZEIT 26.01.2006 NR.5

===============
EDIT, my comment is that I think Max Rauner and Ulrich Schnabel are working for Die Zeit and that they did the interview with Martin Carrier.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Do I dare conjecture that Rauner means "carrier" in German?

 

[marcus]

Do I dare conjecture that Rauner means "carrier" in German?

Isn't babelfish awful. I love how bad the translation is and almost don't want to edit and repair it.

Actually here is a picture of Prof. Dr. Martin Carrier
http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/ZIF/Personen/Taetigkeiten/carrier.html
he is real
not a phantom of babelfish

 

[marcus]

Finally yesterday someone posted a real translation into English of the Max Rauner article. Peter Woit noted it.

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/01/lost-this-is-something-of-new.html

The translator is Eli Rabett. He did not post a translation of the interview as far as I know.

 

[marcus]

the Utrecht team competition website now has some content
as of 6 February
http://www.academischejaarprijs.nl/utrecht/

IT'S ALL IN DUTCH, I CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT!hey, click on "meer", cartoon drawings by Renate Loll and also by TL, and by ER

http://www.academischejaarprijs.nl/utrecht/?p=4#more-4

I guess ER is Egbert Rijke

Loll draws pretty good cartoons.

 

[marcus]

Daniele Oriti, of Cambridge, gave the Quantum Gravity Seminar talk at Utrecht yesterday (13 February)

Renate Loll will give the Physics Colloquium talk at her University on 24 February, so says her website.

It would be interesting to hear about these talks from anyone who is in Utrecht---like PF poster Timbuktu and others---and who happens to attend.

 

[Smots]

Daniele Oriti, of Cambridge, gave the Quantum Gravity Seminar talk at Utrecht yesterday (13 February)

Renate Loll will give the Physics Colloquium talk at her University on 24 February, so says her website.

It would be interesting to hear about these talks from anyone who is in Utrecht---like PF poster Timbuktu and others---and who happens to attend.

I was at the talk by Renate on February 24th, and it was pretty interesting! The whole lecture room was packed to the max, with people sitting on stairs and standing against the walls :-). The talk gave me some more insight in what Loll has done and how she has done it. I tried reading her two latest papers, but got lost in terminology half-way through the paper . One of the people of the audience asked: 'So how is this any different from say, astrology?'. That was pretty funny.

Also, another person asked if she had now unified quantum gravity and relativity.

 

[marcus]

I was at the talk by Renate on February 24th, and it was pretty interesting! The whole lecture room was packed to the max, with people sitting on stairs and standing against the walls :-). The talk gave me some more insight in what Loll has done and how she has done it. I tried reading her two latest papers, but got lost in terminology half-way through the paper . One of the people of the audience asked: 'So how is this any different from say, astrology?'. That was pretty funny.

Also, another person asked if she had now unified quantum gravity and relativity.

thanks, Smots!
It's great to have a first-hand report.
I would have liked to be there, to hear both the main talk and her response to the audience questions.

One thing Perimeter Institute has over Utrecht ITP is that they put talks like that up on the web---for anyone to watch. they have a talk by Loll, given last year actually, in case anyone is interested.

=====================

I see the Utrecht team has more up at their competition website:

http://www.academischejaarprijs.nl/utrecht/?p=5#more-5

http://www.academischejaarprijs.nl/utrecht/?p=7#more-7

the second link is to material they just put up today (1 March)
among other things, cartoons by Egbert Rijke

 

[marcus]

The Utrecht team is making a kind of book. the book has charming funny drawings by Egbert Rijke
It comes in chapters, which (if I understand the dutch word) they call "Uploadings"

So they have Uploading 1, and Uploading 2, and Uploading 3, and more to come.

to me it sounds better to say "Installment"

Installment 1 (6 February)
http://www.academischejaarprijs.nl/utrecht/?p=5#more-5

Installment 2 (1 March)
http://www.academischejaarprijs.nl/utrecht/?p=7#more-7

Installment 3 (5 March)
http://www.academischejaarprijs.nl/utrecht/?p=8#more-8

this could become a hardcopy illustrated book which would be a good present to give a young person----high school or college student---as an enjoyable intuitive introduction to the classical and quantum ideas of Spacetime.

the fact is Egbert Rijke has talent and the drawings have a fresh, not-too-serious, light-hearted character. And we have seen already for over a year that Loll is a good writer. She has a conceptual clear style and choice of metaphor that engages the reader's attention. Personally I only know how she writes in English, but thanks to several people we have translations of interviews and other writing that gives some idea that she comes across at least as strong in Dutch as she does in English.

so these installments could, if it works out, become a useful and delightful little book. Someday we may see an English version

I remember from my childhood a funny book of history and/or geography by a Dutchman, with his own drawings. I think his name was Van Loon, or something like that----I remember it sounded loony. Informal illustrated lighthearted account of otherwise daunting subjects is a genre.

Yes! I just checked. Remembered the name right! he was Hendrik Willem van Loon and his 1921 book The Story of Mankind won the very first Newberry Medal for Children's Lit ever awarded, in 1922.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Willem_van_Loon
I see that it is available in electronic version from the Gutenberg project
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/754

Actually there were two books, the history and another called Van Loon's Geography which came out in 1932. I may only have seen the Geography, can't remember.