## Archive for the ‘**physics**’ Category

## Sign problem in QCD

The revised version of our paper 0808.2987 is up on arXiv now. Special thanks to Kim Splittorff, Mark Alford, Bob Sugar, Phillippe de Forcrand and many others for comments. See earlier discussion.

On the sign problem in dense QCDhttp://arXiv.org/abs/0808.2987

S. Hsu and D. Reeb

We investigate the Euclidean path integral formulation of QCD at finite baryon density. We show that the partition function Z can be written as the difference between two sums Z+ and Z-, each of which defines a partition function with positive weights. If the ratio Z-/Z+ is nonzero in the infinite volume limit the sign problem is said to be severe. This occurs only if, and generically always if, the associated free energy densities F+ and F- are equal in this limit. In an earlier version of this paper we conjectured that F- is bigger than F+ in some regions of the QCD phase diagram, leading to domination by Z+. However, we present evidence here that the sign problem may be severe at almost all points in the phase diagram, except in special cases like exactly zero chemical potential (ordinary QCD), which requires a particular order of limits, or at exactly zero temperature and small chemical potential. Finally, we describe a Monte Carlo technique to simulate finite-density QCD in regions where Z-/Z+ is small.

## Survivor: theoretical physics

Some very interesting data here on jobs in particle theory, cosmology, string theory and gravity over the last 15 years in the US (1994 — present).

Based on these numbers and the quality of the talent pool I would guess theoretical physics is the most competitive field in academia, by a large margin. (Your luck will be much, much better in computer science, engineering, biology, …)

The average number of years between completing the PhD and first faculty job is between 5-6. That would make the typical new assistant professor about 33, and almost 40 by the time they receive tenure.

Here are the top schools for producing professors in these fields:

1. Princeton 23 (string theory rules! or ruled… or something)

2. Harvard 18

3. Berkeley 16

This is over 15 years, so that means even at the top three schools only 1 or at most 2 PhDs from a given year typically gets a job in the US. The US is by far the most competitive market. If you follow the link you will see that the list of PhD institutions of US faculty members is truly international, including Tokyo, Berlin, Moscow, etc. (Note I think the jobs data also includes positions at Canadian research universities.)

The field is very much dominated by the top departments; the next most successful include MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Chicago, etc.

Here are some well-known schools that only produced 1 professor of theoretical physics over 15 years: UCLA, UC Davis, U Illinois, U Virginia, U Arizona, Boston University, U Penn, Northwestern, Moscow State University (top university in USSR), Insitute for Nuclear Research (INR) Moscow

Here are some well-known schools that only produced 2 professors over 15 years: Ohio State, U Minnesota, Michigan State, U Colorado, Brown

Here are some well-known schools that only produced 3 professors over 15 years: Columbia, CERN, Johns Hopkins, U Maryland, Yale, Pisa SNS (Scoula Normale Superiore; the most elite university in Italy), Novisibirsk (giant physics lab in USSR)

You can see that by the time we reach 3 professors produced over 15 years we are talking about very, very good physics departments. Even many of the schools in the 1 and 2 category are extremely good. These schools have all *hired* multiple professors over 15 years, but the people hired tend to have been produced by the very top departments. The flow is from the top down.

This dataset describes a very big talent pool — I would guess that a top 50 department (in the world) produces 3-5 PhDs a year in theoretical physics. If most of them only place a student every 5 years or so, that means the majority of their students end up doing something else!

**How many professors do you think are / were straight with their PhD students about the odds of survival?**

I only knew one professor at Berkeley who had kept records and knew the odds. One day in the theory lounge at LBNL Mahiko Suzuki (PhD, University of Tokyo) told me and some other shocked grad students and postdocs that about 1 in 4 theory PhDs from Berkeley would get permanent positions. His estimate was remarkably accurate.

**How many professors do you think had / have a serious discussion with their students about alternative career paths?**

**How many have even a vague understanding of what the vast majority of their former students do in finance, silicon valley, …?**

Related posts: A tale of two geeks , Out on the tail

## Palin, RNC, Romney: the view from Italy

I didn’t get to see any of the coverage of the RNC since I’m here in Italy.

Regarding Palin, there is a natural instability in democracy towards anti-elitism. Many voters are attracted to a leader like themselves (a hockey / soccer mom with dysfunctional family and modest IQ), forgetting that they themselves would make a terrible president or vice-president. I do think the Republican base will like / likes Palin, and there is a chance she will appeal to lot of swing voters.

I don’t know who said it first, but Palin has that naughty librarian look from 80’s heavy metal videos! If you are not familiar with the term MILF, you might look it up — only because it’s being used in a lot of discussion π

Is Romney the favorite for 2012? I’ve heard a lot of good things about him, but his RNC speech is pretty thoroughly middlebrow. Not that I disagree with every point, and certainly he had to tailor it to his audience, but I detect no signs of a large brain (unless you normalize to the MBA population).

I know few Americans care, but people in Europe think Palin is a joke. Another thing I’ve heard is that they don’t believe Obama can overcome all the (perhaps hidden) racism to win the election. We will see!

Exciting action photo from Trento:

## A warning from von Neumann

I can’t resist reproducing this quote from John von Neumann, which I think applies well to certain branches of particle theory today. Thank goodness the LHC is coming on line soon…

As a mathematical discipline travels far from its empirical source… it is beset with very grave dangers. It becomes more and more purely aestheticizing, more and more purely

l’art pour l’art. …In other words, at a great distance from its empirical source, or after much “abstract” inbreeding, a mathematical subject is in danger of degeneration.

From the opening material of the book John von Neumann and Modern Economics. If you can get a copy of this book, I highly recommend the chapter by Paul Samuelson.

## ECT in Trento

I’m off soon to the following meeting at ECT: European Center for Theoretical Studies in Nuclear Physics, which is located in the mountain town of Trento, in the Italian Alps. The picture above was taken just north of Trento. I’m excited to see the dolomiti!

I’m flying in and out of Venice — any tips on what to do there or in Trento would be appreciated π

**Meeting: The statistical model of hadron formation and the nature of the QCD hadronization process**

## Dense nuclear matter: intuition fails!

I usually don’t get into detailed physics exposition on this blog, but I thought I would make an exception with regard to the paper 0808.2987 which I recently wrote with my student David Reeb. (See earlier blog post here.)

In the paper we conjectured that there might be regions in the QCD phase diagram where the sign problem does not prevent monte carlo evaluation of the Euclidean functional integral. We rewrite the partition function as

Z = Z+ – Z-

where Z+ and Z- are sums with positive weights, and each define independent statistical ensembles. Defining Z+ = exp( – V F+ ), and similarly with Z-, so that F+ and F- are the (piecewise) analytic free energies of the two ensembles, we conjectured that

F+ < F-

is the generic situation. Note Z > 0 so F+ > F- is not possible, but they can be exactly equal: F+ = F- , which is where the sign problem is most severe (see below). Since the F’s are analytic except at phase boundaries, we reasoned that if they are equal in a region they must be equal everywhere within that phase region. At mu = 0 we know Z- = 0, so we assumed that there would be a region of small mu where F+ < F- and that this region would extend into the mu-T plane.

It turns out this last assumption is probably wrong! We were unaware of results which strongly suggest that even at arbitrarily small (but positive) mu and small T, Z+ does not dominate Z. That is, in the thermodynamic limit F+ = F- exactly even at small nonzero mu. The order of limits matters: taking V to infinity for fixed nonzero mu (no matter how small) leads to large phase fluctuations. The only way to avoid it is to take mu to zero before taking V to infinity. (See 0709.2218 by Splittorff and Verbaaschot for more details. Note their results rely on chiral perturbation theory, so don’t apply to the whole plane.)

It is quite strange to me that zero density QCD can only be reached in this way. The case we are most familiar with turns out to be the oddball.

To make a long story short, our conjecture is probably incorrect: what we thought would be “exceptional” regions in the phase diagram are the typical ones, and vice versa — at least as far as anyone knows.

Note to experts: we used the term “sign problem” a bit differently than apparently it is used in the lattice community. We refer to dense QCD as having a sign problem even though we don’t know for sure (i.e., for all mu and T) that Z is exponentially small in V due to cancellations (i.e., a “severe sign problem”). Our usage probably translates to “potential sign problem” — the functional measure isn’t positive, so potentially such cancellations can occur, although we do not know if in fact they do. We got a lot of emails from people who thought we were claiming to have a method for dealing with severe sign problems, but in fact we were claiming something else entirely: that there should be regions in the phase diagram where the sign problem is *not* severe.

## Dense nuclear matter

New paper! Probably too technical to go into here, but it relates to our current inability to directly simulate dense nuclear matter (QCD at nonzero baryon density). When the number of quarks and antiquarks is equal, the functional integral representation of the partition function Z has good positivity properties and can be evaluated using importance sampling (lattice Monte Carlo methods). That is no longer true when the system has nonzero baryon number, as would be the case inside a neutron star or in nuclear matter.

We rewrite Z = Z+ – Z- , where Z+ and Z- have good positivity properties, and conjecture, based on arguments using the analytic properties of the free energy, that at most points of the phase diagram Z+ dominates Z-. At such points one can simulate the theory using Monte Carlo.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.2987 (paper available after 5 pm pacific 8.24.08)

Sign problem? No problem — a conjectureStephen D.H. Hsu, David Reeb

We investigate the Euclidean path integral formulation of QCD at finite baryon density. We show that the partition function Z can be written as the difference between two sums, each of which defines a partition function with positive weights. We argue that at most points on the phase diagram one will give an exponentially larger contribution than the other. At such points Z can be replaced by a more tractable path integral with positive definite measure, allowing for lattice simulation as well as the application of QCD inequalities. We also propose a test to control the accuracy of approximation in actual Monte Carlo simulations. Our analysis may be applicable to other systems with a sign problem, such as chiral gauge theory.

## Annals of psychometry: IQs of eminent scientists

I recently came across a 1950s study of eminent scientists by Harvard psychologist Anne Roe (The Making of a Scientist, published in 1952). Her study is by far the most systematic and sophisticated that I am aware of. She selected 64 eminent scientists — well known, but not quite at the Nobel level — in a more or less random fashion, using, e.g., membership lists of scholarly organizations and expert evaluators in the particular subfields. Roughly speaking, there were three groups: physicists (divided into experimental and theoretical subgroups), biologists (including biochemists and geneticists) and social scientists (psychologists, anthropologists).

Roe devised her own high-end intelligence tests as follows: she obtained difficult problems in verbal, spatial and mathematical reasoning from the Educational Testing Service, which administers the SAT, but also performs bespoke testing research for, e.g., the US military. Using these problems, she created three tests (V, S and M), which were administered to the 64 scientists, and also to a cohort of PhD students at Columbia Teacher’s College. The PhD students also took standard IQ tests and the results were used to norm the high-end VSM tests using an SD = 15. Most IQ tests are not good indicators of true high level ability (e.g., beyond +3 SD or so).

Average ages of subjects: mid-40s for physicists, somewhat older for other scientists

Overall normed scores:

Test (Low / Median / High)

V 121 / 166 / 177

S 123 / 137 / 164

M 128 / 154 / 194

Roe comments: (1) V test was too easy for some takers, so top score no ceiling. (2) S scores tend to decrease with age (correlation .4). Peak (younger) performance would have been higher. (3) M test was found to be too easy for the physicists; only administered to other groups.

It is unlikely that any single individual obtained all of the low scores, so each of the 64 would have been strongly superior in at least one or more areas.

Median scores (raw) by group:

group (V / S / M)

Biologists 56.6 / 9.4 / 16.8

Exp. Physics 46.6 / 11.7 / *

Theo. Physics 64.2 / 13.8 / *

Psychologists 57.7 / 11.3 / 15.6

Anthropologists 61.1 / 8.2 / 9.2

The *lowest* score in each category among the 12 theoretical physicists would have been roughly V 160 (!) S 130 M >> 150. (Ranges for all groups are given, but I’m too lazy to reproduce them all here.) It is hard to estimate the M scores of the physicists since when Roe tried the test on a few of them they more or less solved every problem modulo some careless mistakes. Note the top raw scores (27 out of 30 problems solved) among the non-physicists (obtained by 2 geneticists and a psychologist), are quite high but short of a full score. The corresponding normed score is 194!

The lowest V scores in the 120-range were only obtained by 2 experimental physicists, all other scientists scored well above this level — note the mean is 166.

My comments:

The data strongly suggests that high IQ provides a significant advantage in science. Some have claimed that IQ is irrelevant beyond some threshold: more precisely, that the advantage conferred by IQ above some threshold (e.g., 120) decreases significantly as other factors like drive or creativity take precedence. But, if that were the case it would be unlikely to have found such high scores in this group. The average IQ of a science PhD is probably in the 130 range, and individuals with IQs in the range described above constitute a tiny fraction of the overall population of scientists. If IQ were irrelevant above 130 we would expect the most eminent group to have a similar average.

Conversely, I think one should be impressed that a simple test which can be administered in a short period of time (e.g., 30 minutes for Roe’s high-end exams) offers significant predictive power. While it is *not* true that anyone with a high IQ can or will become a great scientist (certainly other factors like drive, luck, creativity play a role), one can nevertheless easily identify the 99 percent (even 99.9 percent) of the population for which success in science is highly improbable. Psychometrics works!

The scores for theoretical physicists confirm an estimate made to me by a famous colleague many years ago, that only 1 in 100,000 people could do high level theoretical physics.

Feynman’s 124: in this context one often hears of Feynman’s modest grade school IQ score of 124. To understand this score we have to remember that typical IQ tests (e.g., administered to public school children) tend to have low ceilings. They are not of the kind that Roe used in her study. One can imagine that the ceiling on Feynman’s exam was roughly 135 (say, 99th percentile). If Feynman received the highest score on the mathematical portion, and a modest score of 115 on the verbal, we can easily understand the resulting average of 124. However, it is well known that Feynman was extremely strong mathematically. He was asked on short notice to take the Putnam exam for MIT as a senior, and received the top score in the country that year! On Roe’s test Feynman’s math score would presumably have been > 190, with a correspondingly higher composite IQ.

I thought I should put this post up now, as the new book by Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers: **Why Some People Succeed and Some Donβt** is out soon and will surely handicap the discourse on this subject for years to come π

## Colorful quantum black holes at the LHC

New paper! What are the experimental signatures of a quantum black hole — i.e., a black hole whose Schwarzschild radius is of order the length scale of quantum gravity? It’s a long shot, but perhaps we’ll see the remnants of tiny quantum black holes in the gigantic detectors at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)!

http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4605

Colorful quantum black holes at the LHCXavier Calmet, Wei Gong, Stephen D. H. Hsu

We examine the LHC phenomenology of quantum black holes in models of TeV gravity. By quantum black holes we mean black holes of the smallest masses and entropies, far from the semiclassical regime. These black holes are formed and decay over short distances, and typically carry SU(3) color charges inherited from their parton progenitors. Based on a few minimal assumptions, such as gauge invariance, we identify interesting signatures for quantum black hole decay such as 2 jets, jet + hard photon, jet + missing energy and jet + charged lepton, which should be readily visible above background. The detailed phenomenology depends heavily on whether one requires a Lorentz invariant, low-energy effective field theory description of black hole processes.