Probably not. But maybe! Or in other words: science as usual.

For the three of you reading this who haven’t yet heard about it, the OPERA experiment in Italy recently announced a genuinely surprising result. They create a beam of muon neutrinos at CERN in Geneva, point them under the Alps (through which they zip largely unimpeded, because that’s what neutrinos do), and then detect a few of them in the Gran Sasso underground laboratory 732 kilometers away. The whole thing is timed by stopwatch (or the modern high-tech version thereof, using GPS-synchronized clocks), and you solve for the velocity by dividing distance by time. And the answer they get is: just a teensy bit faster than the speed of light, by about a factor of 10^-5. Here’s the technical paper, which already lists 20 links to blogs and news reports.

The things you need to know about this result are:

• It’s enormously interesting if it’s right.
• It’s probably not right.

By the latter point I don’t mean to impugn the abilities or honesty of the experimenters, who are by all accounts top-notch people trying to do something very difficult. It’s just a very difficult experiment, and given that the result is so completely contrary to our expectations, it’s much easier at this point to believe there is a hidden glitch than to take it at face value. All that would instantly change, of course, if it were independently verified by another experiment; at that point the gleeful jumping up and down will justifiably commence.

This isn’t one of those annoying “three-sigma” results that sits at the tantalizing boundary of statistical significance. The OPERA folks are claiming a six-sigma deviation from the speed of light. (more…)

Here’s an interesting paper from yesterday’s hep-th batch of abstracts. One of the exciting prospects in observational cosmology over the next several years is finding signals of gravitational waves in the cosmic microwave background. These can be produced by inflation, and indeed simple models (one scalar field, no funny tricks) predict a “consistency relation” between characteristics of ordinary density perturbations and the gravitational waves. If signatures of the waves were detected (typically, by finding “tensor modes” in CMB polarization) and shown to be consistent with the simple prediction, it would be a huge boost for inflation.

The world isn’t always so simple, of course. It’s not too hard to think of models that violate the consistency relation. Now Senatore, Silverstein, and Zaldarriaga are pointing to a new mechanism: gravitational waves produced directly by particle or string sources during inflation. (Silverstein is of course well-known as a string theorist, but her recent work in early-universe cosmology has been as good as anybody’s in the field.) The usual mechanism is simply quantum fluctuations of fields in their vacuum state; these folks are imagining that particular objects — particles or strings — are produced during inflation, which then act as sources for gravitational waves. In a simple model you would expect that this effect might be important at a fixed scale corresponding to the energy of the sources, but they argue that it’s not hard to come up with models where gravitational waves are produced at all scales.

New Sources of Gravitational Waves during Inflation

Leonardo Senatore, Eva Silverstein, Matias Zaldarriaga

We point out that detectable inflationary tensor modes can be generated by particle or string sources produced during inflation, consistently with the requirements for inflation and constraints from scalar fluctuations. We show via examples that this effect can dominate over the contribution from quantum fluctuations of the metric, occurring even when the inflationary potential energy is too low to produce a comparable signal. Thus a detection of tensor modes from inflation does not automatically constitute a determination of the inflationary Hubble scale.

The bad news here is in the last line — in simple models (there’s that word again) the amplitude of gravitational waves is simply proportional to the expansion rate of the universe during inflation. Now that’s no longer so obvious. But research isn’t about finding good news or bad news, it’s about finding the right answer. Being unreasonably confident in the predictions we make from our models is just as dangerous as not having compelling models at all.

Also known as, “scientific progress goes boink.”

One of the benefits of being a Master of Time and Space is that I get to see the future. For example, cosmologically-inclined folks have been wondering for a few weeks about this press release from the TAUP conference in Munich, which includes the lines “Latest results from the CRESST Experiment provide an indication of dark matter. The press conference will be held on 6. September 2011 starting at 2:00 pm.” Suspense! But I know what they’re going to say.

As Neal Weiner points out, we don’t have to wait for the press conference; the friendly folks at the CRESST experiment have ambitiously decided to write a paper as well as giving a press conference, and that paper appeared on the arxiv this evening. (You remember Neal as a distinguished guest blogger; re-read that post to get your bearings in this complicated game.) Very short version: they claim to see some signal that is statistically significantly greater than background, consistent with a WIMP dark-matter particle with a mass of around 20-40 GeV. Slightly longer version:

Results from 730 kg days of the CRESST-II Dark Matter Search

(more…)

Kris Stanek alerted me to this fun idea from the astronomers at Ohio State: when they submit a paper to arxiv, they accompany it by a simple YouTube video that explains the basic idea. Called “Coffee Briefs,” there is only one such video so far, for a paper by Jennifer van Saders and Mark Pinsonneault. But they hope to make it regular series.

The Sensitivity of Convection Zone Depth to Stellar Abundances: An Absolute Stellar Abundance Scale from Asteroseismology
Jennifer L. van Saders, Marc H. Pinsonneault

The base of the convection zone is a source of acoustic glitches in the asteroseismic frequency spectra of solar-like oscillators, allowing one to precisely measure the acoustic depth to the feature. We examine the sensitivity of the depth of the convection zone to mass, stellar abundances, and input physics, and in particular, the use of a measurement of the acoustic depth to the CZ as an atmosphere-independent, absolute measure of stellar metallicities. We find that for low mass stars on the main sequence with $0.4 M_{\odot} \le M \le 1.6 M_{\odot}$, the acoustic depth to the base of the convection zone, normalized by the acoustic depth to the center of the star, $\tau_{cz,n}$, is both a strong function of mass, and varies at the 0.5-1% per 0.1 dex level in [Z/X], and is therefore also a sensitive probe of the composition. We estimate the theoretical uncertainties in the stellar models, and show that combined with reasonable observational uncertainties, we can expect measure the the metallicity to within 0.15 – 0.3 dex for solar-like stars. We discuss the applications of this work to rotational mixing, particularly in the context of the observed mid F star Li dip, and to distguishing between different mixtures of heavy elements.

This example might not be immediately accessible to non-experts, but I think the idea is to pitch the video at the level of astronomy grad students. Certainly the participants deserve a lot of credit for trying out an innovative way to talk about their research.

The key to the ambition of making this a regular even is keeping it simple and easy. If it takes a couple of hours to put it together, no problem; if it takes a couple of days, enthusiasm will flag. I’m not sure what software was used to make the video and the simple graphics — iMovie, maybe? For the DNA computer video we showed some time back, it was quite an elaborate job, and you would worry that it would be onerous to do something like that for every paper one writes.

How did the universe come to be? We don’t know yet, of course, but we know enough about cosmology, gravitation, and quantum mechanics to put together models that standing a fighting chance of capturing some of the truth.

Stephen Hawking‘s favorite idea is that the universe came out of “nothing” — it arose (although that’s not really the right word) as a quantum fluctuation with literally no pre-existing state. No space, no time, no anything. But there’s another idea that’s at least as plausible: that the universe arose out of something, but that “something” was simply “chaos,” whatever that means in the context of quantum gravity. Space, time, and energy, yes; but no order, no particular arrangement.

It’s an old idea, going back at least to Lucretius, and contemplated by David Hume as well as by Ludwig Boltzmann. None of those guys, of course, knew very much of our modern understanding of cosmology, gravitation, and quantum mechanics. So what would the modern version look like?

That’s the question that Anthony Aguirre, Matt Johnson and I tackled in a paper that just appeared on arxiv. (Both of my collaborators have also been guest-bloggers here at CV.)

Out of equilibrium: understanding cosmological evolution to lower-entropy states
Anthony Aguirre, Sean M. Carroll, Matthew C. Johnson

Despite the importance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is not absolute. Statistical mechanics implies that, given sufficient time, systems near equilibrium will spontaneously fluctuate into lower-entropy states, locally reversing the thermodynamic arrow of time. We study the time development of such fluctuations, especially the very large fluctuations relevant to cosmology. Under fairly general assumptions, the most likely history of a fluctuation out of equilibrium is simply the CPT conjugate of the most likely way a system relaxes back to equilibrium. We use this idea to elucidate the spacetime structure of various fluctuations in (stable and metastable) de Sitter space and thermal anti-de Sitter space.

It was Boltzmann who long ago realized that the Second Law, which says that the entropy of a closed system never decreases, isn’t quite an absolute “law.” It’s just a statement of overwhelming probability: there are so many more ways to be high-entropy (chaotic, disorderly) than to be low-entropy (arranged, orderly) that almost anything a system might do will move it toward higher entropy. But not absolutely anything; we can imagine very, very unlikely events in which entropy actually goes down.

In fact we can do better than just imagine: this has been observed in the lab. (more…)

The single most interesting feature of attempts to replace dark matter with a modification of gravity is Milgrom’s discovery that in a wide variety of galaxies, there’s a unique place where ordinary gravity plus ordinary matter stops working: when the acceleration due to gravity (as Newton would have calculated it) drops below a fixed value a₀ ≈ 10⁻¹⁰ m/s². This is the basis of MOND, but the pattern itself is arguably more interesting than any current attempt to account for it. Very possibly it can be explained by the complicated dynamics of baryons and dark matter in galaxies — but in any event it should be explained somehow.

The existence of this feature gives a strong motivation for testing gravity in the regime of very tiny accelerations. Note that this isn’t even a statement that makes sense in general relativity; particles move on geodesics, and the “acceleration due to gravity” is always exactly zero. So implicitly we’re imagining some global inertial frame with respect to which such acceleration can be measured. That’s a job for a future theory to make sense of; for the moment we’re forgetting that we know GR and thinking like Newton would have.

So now Hernandez, Jimenez, and Allen have tried to test gravity in this weak-acceleration regime — and they claim it fails!

The Breakdown of Classical Gravity?
X. Hernandez, M. A. Jimenez, C. Allen

Assuming Newton’s gravity and GR to be valid at all scales, leads to the dark matter hypothesis as a forced requirement demanded by the observed dynamics and measured baryonic content at galactic and extra galactic scales. Alternatively, one can propose a contrasting scenario where gravity exhibits a change of regime at acceleration scales less than $a_{0}$, and obtain just as good a fit to observations across astrophysical scales. A critical experiment in this debate is offered by wide orbit binary stars. Since for $1 M_{\odot}$ systems the acceleration drops below $a_{0}$ at scales of around 7000 AU, an statistical survey of relative velocities and binary separations reaching beyond $10^{4}$ AU should yield a conclusive answer to the above debate. By performing such a study we show Kepler’s third law to fail precisely beyond $a \approx a_{0}$ scales, precisely as predicted by modified gravity theories designed not to require any dark matter at galactic scales and beyond.

Color me dubious, but interested in seeing further studies. It’s very hard to collect this kind of data, and note that it’s just a statistical survey of velocities, not a precise measurement of individual systems. In principle a statistical survey is fine; in practice, it opens up the possibility of hidden subtle systematic effects.

Still, intriguing and worth checking out. Any time you have the chance to overthrow Sir Isaac Newton, you go for it.

I am in absolutely no position to judge the technical execution of this work, but a group has posted a possible solution to the “Pioneer Anomaly” on the Physics/Astronomy ArXiV server (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1103.5222).

For those who haven’t been following along at home, there appear to be subtle unexpected Sun-ward accelerations (i.e. higher than expected decelerations) seen in the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft while leaving the Solar System. Sean posted an earlier discussion of the anomaly and a possible reported solution that does not involve modifying gravity. However, this latest paper is by a different group, and posits that reflections within the spacecraft are enough to explain the discrepancies. There’s a nicer write-up than this one at the Technology Review Physics ArXiV blog.

FYI, it was posted a few days ago, and is not an April Fool’s posting.

Also FYI, my kids just got passports, and did you know that there’s an image of Pioneer 10 on the inside back cover? Beamjockey did some nice sleuthing a few years back and dug up the source image!

Here’s a fascinating new result about black holes in five dimensions — actually from last October, but I missed it when it came out. I just noticed it this week because of a write-up by Gary Horowitz in Matters of Gravity, the newsletter of the gravity group of the American Physical Society. (I obviously missed David Berenstein’s post as well.)

You might be thinking that black holes in five dimensions can’t be that interesting, since they are probably pretty similar to black holes in four dimensions, and after all we don’t live in five dimensions. But of course, there could be a fifth dimension of space that is compactified on a tiny circle. (Of course.) So then you have to consider two different regimes: the size of the circle is much larger than the size of the black hole — in which the fact that it’s compact doesn’t really matter, and you just have a regular black hole in five dimensions — or the size of the circle is smaller than the black hole — in which case, what?

The answer is that you get a black string — a cylindrical configuration that stretches across the extra dimension. This was figured out a long time ago by Ruth Gregory and Raymond LaFlamme. But they were also clever enough to ask — what if you had that kind of cylindrical black hole, but it stretched across a relatively large extra dimension? That sounds like a configuration you can make, but it might be unstable — wiggles in the string could grow, leading it to pinch off into a set of distinct black holes. One way of seeing that something like that is likely is to calculate the entropy of each configuration; for long enough black strings, the entropy is lower than a collection of black holes with the same mass, and entropy tends to grow. Indeed, Gregory and LaFlamme showed that long black strings are unstable. However, it wasn’t clear what exactly would ultimately happen to them. (more…)

Good to know that our Secretary of Energy, Steve Chu, is still able to unwind from a long day of bureaucracy by thinking about atom interferometry and the Principle of Equivalence.

Equivalence Principle and Gravitational Redshift

Michael A. Hohensee, Steven Chu, Achim Peters, Holger Mueller

We investigate leading order deviations from general relativity that violate the Einstein equivalence principle (EEP) in the gravitational standard model extension (SME). We show that redshift experiments based on matter waves and clock comparisons are equivalent to one another. Consideration of torsion balance tests, along with matter wave, microwave, optical, and M\”ossbauer clock tests yields comprehensive limits on spin-independent EEP-violating SME terms at the $10^{-6}$ level.

The Principle of Equivalence says that, if you’re in free fall, there’s no way of detecting the gravitational field around you in a local region of spacetime. (You’ve seen Inception, right?) Unlike electromagnetism, with gravity there’s no local “force” that can be detected by comparing what happens to particles of different charges. In other words, all particles feel the same “charge” as far as gravity is concerned; they all fall in the same way.

So to look for violations of the EP (which are certainly conceivable, even if it sometimes just sounds like technobabble), you do experiments that look for particles doing different things in different kinds of gravitational fields. For example, you can use the EP to predict the gravitational redshift, which can be thought of as “time running more slowly when you are deep in a gravitational potential.” (Not the most precise formulation, but it will do.) And therefore you can test the EP by measuring the different amount of time elapsed by sending clocks on different trajectories. (more…)

Actually there are lots of gravitational waves; we just haven’t detected them directly yet. The LIGO and VIRGO collaborations have put their heads together — over 700 authors! — and come up with the best limit yet on gravitational waves from inspiralling massive black-hole binaries.

Search for gravitational waves from binary black hole inspiral, merger and ringdown

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration (722 authors)
(Submitted on 18 Feb 2011)
We present the first modeled search for gravitational waves using the complete binary black hole gravitational waveform from inspiral through the merger and ringdown for binaries with negligible component spin. We searched approximately 2 years of LIGO data taken between November 2005 and September 2007 for systems with component masses of 1-99 solar masses and total masses of 25-100 solar masses. We did not detect any plausible gravitational-wave signals but we do place upper limits on the merger rate of binary black holes as a function of the component masses in this range. We constrain the rate of mergers for binary black hole systems with component masses between 19 and 28 solar masses and negligible spin to be no more than 2.0 per Mpc^3 per Myr at 90% confidence.

Note the caveats on the analysis: for one thing, it’s looking for the inspiral phase in particular (which should be the easiest to see). More importantly, they’re looking for a specific mass range — between 25 and 100 solar masses total in the binary system, which is rather large. (But nicely positioned for LIGO’s frequency sensitivity.) And of course they’re looking for black holes, not neutron stars (which would be less massive).

The truth is, they shouldn’t have seen anything, according to our best theoretical estimates. From the conclusions:

We did not detect any plausible gravitational-wave candidates. However we estimated our search sensitivity and were able to constrain the merger rate of the targeted sources in the nearby Universe. We established to 90% confidence that the merger rate of black holes with component masses between 19M_sun and 28M_sun is less than 2.0 Mpc^-3 Myr^-1. We note that this is still about an order of magnitude higher than optimistic estimates for such systems [28] (see also [13, 19])

So, keep looking. They’re getting closer; the next step is to upgrade to Advanced LIGO. Once that happens, a lack of detections will be more surprising than actually detecting something.