Wednesday, October 13, 2004

On the black hole information paradox

After nearly 30 years of arguing that a black hole destroys everything that falls into it, Stephen Hawking is saying he was wrong. It seems that black holes may after all allow information within them to escape. Hawking will present his latest finding at a conference in Ireland next week.

Other articles:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996193
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/blackhole-04c.html

I didn't see this story back when it was published. The conference was on July 21st, and I'm just now learning about it through the American Physical Society's coverage. It's not yet clear that this new explanation is correct. John Preskill has not yet accepted the encyclopedia in part because he says "I didn't understand the talk." Kip Thorne (Hawking's betting partner) is apparently also unconvinced.

A very accessible (but still technical) discussion of the information paradox can be found on Baez's website.

Thursday, October 07, 2004

Field Quantization

I'm currently refreshing my understanding of quantum field theory by reading Field Quantization by Greiner & Reinhardt. I hope to follow this up by tackling those parts of Relativistic Quantum Fields (Bjorken & Drell) and Quantum Field Theory (Itzykson & Zuber) that I did not adequately master during my graduate training. Field Quantization covers things in much the same level of detail as Greiner's Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Electrodynamics, although some steps are skipped in derivations, as befits a book meant for advanced graduate students. Still, the book covers the mathematical details of relativistic quantum field theory in a simple way, contains more details than most other standard treatments and includes many instructive examples that most other authors just gloss over or exclude altogether.

One thing worth noting about this book is that although it has far too many typos, it has nowhere near the ridiculous number contained in Greiner's RQM or QED books. The publisher should be completely ashamed of himself for marring such an excellent pedagogical exposition in those other books with typographic blunders so numerous that the inexpert reader is thoroughly distracted from the clarity of the exposition in those two books. Field Quantization at least keeps the number of errors down low enough where the text is still readable and maybe even usable in a classroom environment.

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

So what is the Poincaré Conjecture?

Wolfram's site explains it quite well.

In its original form, the Poincaré conjecture stated that every simply connected closed three-manifold is homeomorphic to the three-sphere. More colloquially, the conjecture says that the three-sphere is the only type of bounded three-dimensional space possible that contains no holes. This conjecture was first proposed in 1904 by Poincaré.

Soon thereafter this specialized conjecture for the case n=3 was generalized to the conjecture that every compact n-manifold is homotopy-equivalent to the n-sphere if and only if it is homeomorphic to the n-sphere, which is logically equivalent to the earlier weaker conjecture in the case n=3. The n=1 case is trivial, the n=2 case was known to 19th century mathematicians, n=4 was proved by Freedman in 1982 for which he was awarded the 1986 Fields medal, n=5 was proved by Zeeman in 1961, n=6 was proved by Stallings in 1962, and n>6 was proved by Smale in 1961 (although Smale subsequently extended his proof to include all n>4).

The n=3 case has baffled mathematicians since it was first proposed, spawning a multitude of incorrect proofs by many mathematicians, including Poincare and Whitehead. However, it now appears that this remaining case has finally been proved by Perelman although the proof has not yet been fully verified. In fact, Perelman's work may prove the more general Thurston Geometrization Conjecture from which the Poincare Conjecture would then follow.

Perelman's two papers are The entropy formula for the Ricci flow and its geometric applications and Ricci flow with surgery on three-manifolds. For the non Fields Medal candidates among us, a more accessible (but still highly technical) discussion can be found on the AMS site.

2004 Nobel Prize in Physics

The winners of the 2004 Nobel Prize in Phyiscs have just been announced.

"for the discovery of asymptotic freedom in the theory of the strong interaction"

David J. Gross - Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California at Santa Barbara
H. David Politzer - California Institute of Technology
Frank Wilczek - Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Saturday, October 02, 2004

Most Interesting Open Math Questions

1. Twin Prime Conjecture: There are an infinite number of twin primes. (This problem was known to the ancient Greeks; it’s related to Hilbert’s Eighth Problem.)

2. Goldbach Conjecture: Every even integer larger than 2 is the sum of two primes. (This problem was known to the ancient Greeks; it’s related to Hilbert’s Eighth Problem.)

3. Riemann Hypothesis/Conjecture: All of the non-trivial zeros of the Zeta Function are located on the line Re(s) = ½. (This is the central point of Hilbert’s Eighth Problem; also one of the Millennium Problems.)

4. Birch & Swinnerton-Dyer Conjecture: If a given elliptic curve has an infinite number of solutions, then the associated L-series has value 0 at a certain fixed point. (One of the Millennium Problems)

5. Hodge Conjecture: For projective algebraic varieties, Hodge cycles are actually rational linear combinations of algebraic cycles. (One of the Millennium Problems)

6. Jacobian Conjecture: If det[F’(x)]=1 for a polynomial map F, then F is bijective with polynomial inverse. (One of Steve Smale’s 1998 problems)

7. Under what conditions does a solution exist to the Navier-Stokes non-linear partial differential equation? Do these equations have solutions that last for all time, given arbitrary sufficiently nice initial data, or do singularities develop in the fluid flow that prevent the solution from continuing? (One of the Millennium Problems)

8. How many limit cycles are possible for a given ODE? (Half of Hilbert’s Sixteenth Problem)

9. Describe the shapes possible for the graphs of algebraic functions with only real numbers allowed as solutions. (Half of Hilbert’s Sixteenth Problem)

10. Does P = NP? (One of the Millennium Problems)

The Poincare Conjecture is not included in this list because based on what I've read (not that I'm qualified to evaluate a lot of what's being written about it) it seems that the solution by Perelman is correct.

A plethora of additional unsolved mathematics problems can be found at mathworld.wolfram.com.

Most Interesting Open Physics Questions

I make no pretense of originality in the following. This list of what I consider the most interesting and important unanswered physics questions borrows heavily from Warren Siegel, John Baez and Lee Smolin. However, this compilation does introduce one or two new ideas not contained in any of their writings. It is worth noting that nine questions (with multiple subparts) is almost certainly excessive. A greater mind than mine could probably collapse these into fewer questions, and it is likely that identifying the right relations between these questions would in and of itself lead to some sort of breakthrough.

Question 1 – The Standard Model
(a) Are all 61 fundamental particles in the Standard Model truly elementary, or do they have some substructure?  Can the various particles be explained as manifestations of a more fundamental entity? Do quarks or leptons have any substructure, or are they truly elementary?
(b) What is the mechanism of CP violation? Is it explicable entirely within the Standard Model, or is some new force or mechanism required? Related to this, is there more matter than antimatter? If so, why?
(c) Are the measurable dimensionless parameters that characterize Nature calculable in principle or are they merely determined by historical or quantum mechanical accident and incalculable?
(d) Are there exactly three generations of leptons and quarks? Why do the generations have the structure they do?
(e) Why do these particles have the precise masses they do? Or is this an unanswerable question? How do we understand neutrino mass?
(f) Is it possible to calculate masses of hadrons from QCD?

Question 2 – String Theory
(a) Does string theory actually work? Do problems fixed at the perturbative level return with the non-perturbative 11th dimension described by non-renormalizable membrane theory? Is a 10-dimensional perturbation expansion reasonable for an 11-dimensional theory?
(b) Are there any other strings than the D=10(11) and 26 ones, not counting dual theories?
(c) Do the four forces really become unified at sufficiently high energy?
(d) What are the fundamental degrees of freedom of M-theory? Does M-theory describe Nature? Does M-theory give specific predictions about elementary particles? If so, are they correct?

Question 3 - Gravity
(a) What is gravity? Can we merge quantum theory and general relativity to create a quantum gravity?
(b) What, if anything, do gravity waves (now that they have been discovered) teach us about Nature?
(c) Does the graviton exist? If so, is it fundamental?
(d) Can quantum gravity help explain the origin of the Universe?

Question 4 – Cosmology
(a) What happened at or before the Big Bang? Was there really an initial singularity? Does the history of the Universe go back in time forever or only a finite amount? Will the future of the Universe go on forever or not?
(b) Is the Universe infinite in spatial extent? More generally, what is the topology of space?
(c) Why is there an arrow of time? Why is the future so much different from the past?
(d) How can we understand the cosmological horizon problem? Why is the Universe almost, but not quite, homogeneous, on the very largest distance scales? Is this the result of an inflationary epoch? If so, what caused this inflation?
(e) Why does the cosmological constant have the value that it has? Is it zero? How do we reconcile the requirements of cosmology with the predictions of quantum field theory or string theory? Is the cosmological constant actually constant?
(f) What is the real solution to the "dark matter" and "dark energy" problems? Do they actually exist? If so, what are they? If not, how and why is gravity modified on large scales?
(g) Do we live in a false vacuum (i.e., not the lowest possible energy state)?

Question 5 – Black Holes
(a) Do black holes exist? What happens inside a black hole? What do you do with the singularities? Doesn't a singularity signify a breakdown of the theory? Do naked singularities exist, or is the Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis true?
(b) Do black holes evaporate through Hawking radiation? If so, what happens when they radiate completely away?
(c) Has the information paradox really been resolved? Was Hawking right in 1975, or was Hawking right in 2005?

Question 6 - Confinement & the Mass Gap
(a) Does confinement work? Can we calculate the observed linear Regge trajectories and see what happens to the bound states as their excitation energy increases?
(b) Is there a mathematically rigorous formulation of a relativistic quantum field theory describing interacting fields in four dimensions?
(c) Can we rigorously solve the SU(2) Yang-Mills theory in four dimensions so that we can quantitatively predict quark and gluon confinement as well as the existence of a mass gap between the Planck scale and the electroweak unification scale? (This is actually one of the seven Millenium mathematics problems.)
(d) Does QCD predict that quarks and gluons become deconfined and form plasma at high temperature? If so, what are the characteristics of the deconfinement phase transition? Does this really happen in Nature?

Question 7 – Nature’s Dimensionality
(a) Is Nature four-dimensional? If not, then why does Nature appear to have one time and three space dimensions?
(b) Does compactification work? What forces the extra dimensions to hide and prevents them from reappearing? Does compactification destroy predictability? Do the extra dimensions really do anything we couldn't reproduce without them?

Question 8 - Supersymmetry
(a) Is Nature supersymmetric? If so, how is supersymmetry broken? If not, is supersymmetry still useful?
(b) Is fine tuning really that much worse than any other kind of tuning? Are superpartners any worse than non-minimal Higgs?

Question 9 – Quantum Mechanics
How should we think about the foundations of quantum mechanics? What is meant by a "measurement" in quantum mechanics? Does "wavefunction collapse" actually happen as a physical process? If so, how and under what conditions? If not, what happens instead? Can we make sense of the theory as it stands today? If not, can we invent a new theory that does make sense?

Master's Level Mathematics Curriculum

Algebra:
This recommendation assumes that a year-long undergraduate course at the level of A First Course in Abstract Algebra by Fraleigh has been completed.
Analysis:
This recommendation assumes that a year-long undergraduate course at the level of "Baby Rudin" has been completed.
Topology:
This recommendation assumes that a year-long undergraduate course in point-set topology at the level of Topology by Munkres has been completed.

Master's Level Physics Curriculum

Mathematical Physics:
This recommendation assumes that a text at the level of Arfken or Butkov has been completed as an undergraduate.
Mechanics:
Electrodynamics:
Quantum Mechanics:

Statistical Mechanics:

General Relativity:
I'm not sure why so few graduate programs include general relativity. It's really hard to consider yourself a fully educated physicist without having a grounding in this subject.

An Undergraduate Mathematics Curriculum

The indispensable lower division core consists of the following three courses.

A standard problem in all mathematics curricula is how to transition from lower-division problem-based courses such as the three above to the upper-division proof-based courses. The following trio of books accomplishes this quite well.

The following constitute the standard trio of upper-division courses that all mathematics majors should cover to be considered mathematically mature (as well as mathematically literate).

Some standard elective courses in the area of applied mathematics are the following.

Some standard elective courses in the area of pure mathematics are the following.

One topic that is seldom covered in the undergraduate curriculum is geometry. This course is required for most mathematics education majors, but not mathematics majors. This is a shame since this course, even though it doesn't lead into any of the major fields of mathematics research, provides a most insightful foray into how an axiomatic mathematical system should function. I found it utterly fascinating and am very glad I took the opportunity to include it in my coursework.

An Undergraduate Physics Curriculum

Introductory Physics:
  • Sears and Zemansky's University Physics by Hugh Young. This book is much better than the standard text by Halliday & Resnick. You’ll probably want to pick up the study guide and solution manual to help you navigate through the text.
  • Modern Physics by Llewellyn & Tipler
  • Feynman Lectures On Physics by Feynman. You will never learn the material just from this book, but in conjunction with a more accessible book such as Young, Feynman’s Lectures will yield an insight on every page.
Mathematical and Computational Physics:
Classical Mechanics:
Classical Electromagnetism:
  • Electromagnetic Fields and Waves by Lorrain, Corson & Lorrain. This book contains two fascinating chapters covering the relativistic description of electricity and magnetism as a unified phenomenon that I have not seen in any other undergraduate text.
  • Classical Electrodynamics by Walter Greiner. Not good enough to stand alone but a great supplement to Lorrain, Corson & Lorrain.
Quantum Mechanics:
Thermodynamics & Statistical Mechanics:
Relativity:
  • A First Course in General Relativity by Bernard Schutz. Special relativity is usually sufficiently covered in Modern Physics classes (and the suggested book by Llewellyn & Tipler does it well), but general relativity seems to be never covered in the undergraduate curriculum. This book is a good introduction for the undergraduate. (Hartle is a good alternative.)

Friday, October 01, 2004

Started another blog

Decided to create a second blog for my mathematics and physics observations. I have much more of a vision for this one. I'll probably post something new in it later today or tomorrow at the latest.