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

[marcus]

.. And I really enjoy the courses taught at the moment (QFT, Statistical Field Theory, GR) :

interesting, if you go to GR lecture at 9 Thursday morning then you may be hearing classical GR from someone who has an idea of what could replace it.

 

[Spin_Network]

I would give anything to get into the lecture by :prof. dr.ir. P. Grassberger,:NS-TP450M: Kramers course: Phase transitions and anomalous scaling in non-equilibrium systems

then:NS-TP453M: Soft condensed matter theory:lecturer : dr. R.H.H.G. van Roij,

Great place to be!

 

[marcus]

Timbuqtu, I have a suggestion for you
the October 10-14 conference at potsdam could be historically significant
it might IMHO be of interest to you later to have been there and seen it.
I suggest you consider doing this:
go to Loll, or Westra and say "can you get me in as an observer to this conference? I know the registration is past, but i think it might be
a memorable conference and I would like to have seen it. would that work?"
http://loops05.aei.mpg.de

 

[marcus]

Perimeter is inviting applications for postdoc positions for 2006
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?lang=en
application must be done online (they supply a link)
and the deadline---in November 2005---will be extended until
all positions are filled.

 

[Timbuqtu]

interesting, if you go to GR lecture at 9 Thursday morning then you may be hearing classical GR from someone who has an idea of what could replace it.

It is interesting . But let me ask you something else: can you imagine Gerard 't Hooft, being one of the big string opponents, teached String theory for couple of years (until 2003/2004) here?

Timbuqtu, I have a suggestion for you
the October 10-14 conference at potsdam could be historically significant
it might IMHO be of interest to you later to have been there and seen it.
I suggest you consider doing this:
go to Loll, or Westra and say "can you get me in as an observer to this conference? I know the registration is past, but i think it might be
a memorable conference and I would like to have seen it. would that work?"
http://loops05.aei.mpg.de

Probably it's too late now (Potsdam is not exactly around the corner). But there will be enough oppurtunaties to see (some of) these people around here I think. And I guess I wouldn't understand a lot of what they are saying. But it sure must be impressive to see all these guys together.

 

[marcus]

It is interesting . But let me ask you something else: can you imagine Gerard 't Hooft, being one of the big string opponents, teached String theory for couple of years (until 2003/2004) here?

Yes Timbuqtu!
I think Gerard 't Hooft should be the perfect person to teach a course about String ideas.

I think that to all approaches to bring quantum physics together with GR he would be encouraging them to do their best. but I think he is also realistic and I like the quote where he is explaining that String ideas are not yet a Theory----that there is so far no scientific theory called String Theory, that makes predictions by which it can be tested---and he says in his book In Search of the Ultimate Building Blocks:

Actually, I would not even be prepared to call string theory a “theory” rather a “model” or not even that: just a hunch. After all, a theory should come together with instructions on how to deal with it to identify the things one wishes to describe, in our case the elementary particles, and one should, at least in principle, be able to formulate the rules for calculating the properties of these particles, and how to make new predictions for them. Imagine that I give you a chair, while explaining that the legs are still missing, and that the seat, back and armrest will perhaps be delivered soon; whatever I did give you, can I still call it a chair?[/color]


https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=755232#post755232

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=761411#post761411

My impression of 't Hooft (please tell me if I am way off the mark) is that he wants people to get a quantum theory of spacetime, AND HE DOES NOT CARE WHO, OR HOW, OR BY WHAT METHOD IT COMES. So he is not protecting the interest or prestige of this method or that method, or the authority of this person or that person. I like to imagine that 't Hooft says to all the methods "go for it! go get 'em". And if this is his attitude and also the attitude of De Wit, then those people stand a good chance.]

 

[marcus]

here is a general question to anybody

Renate Loll has a new snapshot of herself at her website

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

and she is holding a doll.

Identify this doll.

 

[Kalimaa23]

Isn't that the Einstein action figure they realized for the 2005 World Year of Physics?

 

[marcus]

Isn't that the Einstein action figure they realized for the 2005 World Year of Physics?

Thank you Dimitri! Stupid me, I could tell it was Einstein but I didn't know there was an Official Horrible Taste Kitsch doll created especially for the World Year of Physics. what will they think of next.

 

[marcus]

this photo troubles me

maybe it is a good photo. what do you think? anybody.

what I see in the person at that moment is a mixture of
dignity and impudence

and maybe the picture is iconic, or symbolic of a true relationship, that already at this moment we (in combination with her) hold Gen Rel in the palm of a new model.
and that Gen Rel is the artifact of the quantum theory we watch developing

 

[selfAdjoint]

Seems more like the chip on her shoulder is aimed out at the viewer rather than at the Einstein doll. Like "Yes, I have an Einstein doll. You want to make something of it?"

 

[Spin_Network]

this photo troubles me

maybe it is a good photo. what do you think? anybody.

what I see in the person at that moment is a mixture of
dignity and impudence

and maybe the picture is iconic, or symbolic of a true relationship, that already at this moment we (in combination with her) hold Gen Rel in the palm of a new model.
and that Gen Rel is the artifact of the quantum theory we watch developing

The photographer ( likes to put something "extra" into his images, for instance here:http://www.fjodor.nl/manipulation_mariecarmenoudendijk_gb.html

His webpage here:http://www.fjodor.nl/biografie_gb.html

I do not think Loll would have just picked up the Doll,that was just laying around in the room she was having her picture taken, and holding Einstein thus?

She is reaching out to Einstein?..Holding Einsten in the palm of her hand?..or just simply, she is holding out a "model of Einstein", wherby she is symbolically an "extension" of Einstein?

 

[marcus]

She is reaching out to Einstein?..Holding Einsten in the palm of her hand?..?

her theory, CDT, is aimed at comprehending and containing Einstein Gen Rel. if it were right then she would be the "super-Albert"

and CDT would provide a dynamical principle by which spacetime operates at very very small scale
and this quantum dynamical principle, by operating everywhere at very small scale, would GIVE RISE at large scale to the behavior described by the Einstein equation of general relativity.

so Gen Rel would come out of Loll CDT as a large scale limit.

you know this Spin_N, I just want to have it explicitly said. this is what CDT aims to do. It aims to have a micro-scale dynamic principle that DOES NOT EVEN ASSUME THAT THE MACRO-SPACETIME IS FOUR DIMENSIONAL. Even something as basic as the dimensionality is supposed to arise from the working of a simple Planckscale mechanism.

So if one can make CDT work, then one "explains" Einstein Gen Rel. One has a model that can reproduce it from something simpler and more basic.

the photo concept, symbolism (even tho daring), layout and composition is OK, what bothers me is the absurdist streak of the photographer, because the doll is such a Barby caricature of Einstein. But I am gradually getting over the shock and will be all right soon

 

[Spin_Network]

her theory, CDT, is aimed at comprehending and containing Einstein Gen Rel. if it were right then she would be the "super-Albert"

and CDT would provide a dynamical principle by which spacetime operates at very very small scale
and this quantum dynamical principle, by operating everywhere at very small scale, would GIVE RISE at large scale to the behavior described by the Einstein equation of general relativity.

so Gen Rel would come out of Loll CDT as a large scale limit.

you know this Spin_N, I just want to have it explicitly said. this is what CDT aims to do. It aims to have a micro-scale dynamic principle that DOES NOT EVEN ASSUME THAT THE MACRO-SPACETIME IS FOUR DIMENSIONAL. Even something as basic as the dimensionality is supposed to arise from the working of a simple Planckscale mechanism.

So if one can make CDT work, then one "explains" Einstein Gen Rel. One has a model that can reproduce it from something simpler and more basic.

the photo concept, symbolism (even tho daring), layout and composition is OK, what bothers me is the absurdist streak of the photographer, because the doll is such a Barby caricature of Einstein. But I am gradually getting over the shock and will be all right soon

Marcus, I left the reply for a while hoping that you would re-look at the Loll/Einstein MODEL picture?

Take another look?...what do you see?..specifically, what pose/stance is the Einstein Model Loll is holding in?..look really closely!

Scale Model

 

[marcus]

...

Scale Model

maybe I understand you Spin_N. if you had been the photographer then the Albert doll would have his left hand extended palm up supporting a tiny figure of Newton. and Newton would have been in a similar stance...

well, here is the link, in case anyone else is curious
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~loll/Web/title/title.html

 

[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,[/color]
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.