Quantum Theory and Beyond: Is Entanglement Special?

Particle dynamics of a cartoon dune

Toward a Gigabit Wireless Communications System

Making the Earth: Combining Dynamics and Chemistry in the Solar System

The Weak Force: From Fermi to Feynman

Discovered in 2004 in an orbit that ranges between 34 and 51 astronomical units from the Sun, Haumea is one of the largest Kuiper Belt Objects and also one of the oddest.

Haumea has two moons, a mass about a third of Pluto's and a strange elongated shape. It rotates every 3.9 hours making it the most rapidly spinning object of its size in the Solar System, probably as a result of a collision in the distant past.

But here's the oddity. Unlike all other large Kuiper Belt Objects, which are covered in methane ice and so slightly red in colour, Haumea and its two moons are covered in water ice, giving them a blue tinge. Moreover, Haumea is much denser than water and so must have a rich rocky core. Haumea must be profoundly different to other big Kuiper Belt Objects.

Today the story gets even stranger. Pedro Lacerda at Queen's University in Belfast says he has spotted a dark red spot on the surface of Haumea using a 2.2 metre telescope at the University of Hawaii, the first time that surface detail has been been made out on such a body (if you exclude Pluto, of course). The question is how did it get there and what is it made of.

Lacerda rules out the possibility that the spot is a mountain or valley because that would change the brightness in an easily identifiable way. Instead he speculates on two possibilities. The first is that the spot could be a region on Haumea where the interior is trickling out. Whatever that stuff might be, it is likely to be warmer and therefore redder than water ice. His second idea is that the spot could be the site of a recent impact of a smaller Kuiper Belt Object, most of which are believed to be covered by a red organic materials.

Either way, that's interesting news. The Kuiper Belt was discovered only in 1992 and his since revolutionised our understanding of the Solar System and how it formed. Clearly there's a lot more we can learn from these mysterious objects

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0911.0009: The Dark Red Spot on KBO Haumea

Is it really possible to predict the end of financial bubbles? Didier Sornette at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich thinks so and has set up the Financial Crisis Observatory at ETH to study the idea.

We've looked at his extraordinary predictions before. Earlier this year, he identified a bubble in the Shanghai Composite Index and much to this blog's surprise, forecast its end with remarkable accuracy.

But as many people pointed out, the problem with this kind of forecast is that it is difficult interpret the results. Does it really back Sornette's hypothesis that crashes are predictable? How do we know that he doesn't make these predictions on a regular basis and only publicise the ones that come true? Or perhaps he modifies them as the due date gets closer so that they always seem to be right (as weather forecasters do). It's even possible that his predictions influence the markets: perhaps they trigger crashes.

Sornette himself is only too well aware of these problems and so has designed an experiment to properly test two hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that financial (and other) bubbles can be diagnosed in real-time before they end. And the second is that the termination of financial (and other) bubbles can be bracketed using probabilistic forecasts, with a reliability better than chance.

The experiment--he calls it the Financial Bubble Experiment--consists of Sornette and his team monitoring world markets and coming up with predictions about the forthcoming end of bubbles in the way they have been doing in recent years. But instead of publishing these predictions, Sornette intends to seal them in an electronic envelope held by a trusted third party, in this case, the physics arXiv.

The arXiv time stamps each prediction so that there is no dispute over when it was made and ensures that it cannot be changed.

Every six months, Sornette says he will open the envelopes and publish his predictions so that anyone can see how successful he has been.

That's a brave step forward but one that he has little choice over, if his ideas are to be broadly accepted.

To start off with, he has made three forecasts which he's posted to the arXiv. On 1 May 2010, he will unseal them and we'll be waiting.

Exciting stuff.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0911.0454: The Financial Bubble Experiment: Advanced Diagnostics and Forecasts of Bubble Terminations

Gamma ray bursts have provided a constant source of excitement since they were discovered in the 1960s by US military satellites hunting for evidence of secret nuclear weapons tests.

When they light up the sky, gamma ray bursts are the brightest objects in the Universe. They emit so much light that astronomers believe it must be collimated in some way, otherwise the total emission could not arise from currently understood astrophysical phenomenon. As it is, they release in a few seconds, the energy equivalent to the rest mass of the Sun.

That makes them of more than a passing interest to humanity. Gamma ray bursts in the Milky Way may have triggered mass extinctions on Earth in the past and so could threaten us in future.

However a gamma ray burst has never been seen in the Milky Way. In fact, they are generally the most distant, and therefore the oldest, astronomical objects we can see. Astronomers last week said they'd spotted a gamma ray burst that occurred just 630 million years after the Big Bang.

All this information and much more is the result of two revolutions that have occurred in gamma ray astronomy. First is the launch of the Swift and Fermi gamma ray telescopes in 2004 and 2008 respectively. Second is a global co-ordination project that alerts the community to gamma ray bursts so that their afterglows can be observed at other frequencies.

As a result astronomers have gone from being starved of data about gamma ray bursts to suddenly drowning in it. And as the amount of poorly understood data grows day by day, it's slowly becoming clear that gamma ray bursts are much more complex and mysterious than anybody imagined.

Today, Maxim Lyutikov at Purdue University in Indiana, outlines the mysteries that astronomers are puzzling over and it makes for fascinating reading. There seem to be two types of gamma ray burst: long ones lasting thousands of seconds and short ones that flash on and off in less than a second. How these different types occur is not yet known. And don't bet against other types of burst being discovered soon.

These bursts have x-ray afterglows which sometimes decay quickly and in other cases plateau for tens of thousands of seconds. Some bursts later flare up again and others cut out momentarily, like a backfiring Ford Model T.

Each of these observations requires a separate explanation and the theorists are struggling. The consensus is that gamma ray bursts are created in some kind of gravitational collapse in which gravitational energy is converted into kinetic energy and then into light. So supernovas are generally agreed to be one type of source. Where the others come from, nobody knows.

Then there is the question of how such a collapse occurs. A gravitational collapse implies the existence of a shock wave but the structure of this wave and how it interacts with anything in its path is poorly understood.

Even the physical mechanism by which gamma rays are formed is disputed. One possibility is by synchrotron emission, charged particles accelerated in a magnetic field. Where this magnetic field comes from and how it interacts with a shock wave is not known. Another option is inverse Compton emission in which high energy electrons boost the energy of photons to higher frequencies. Take your pick.

The hope is that these mechanisms can be put together in some way that they will explain the structure of the data that astronomers see: the flares, the afterglows and the varying timescales over which these happen.

But the fear that Lyutikov raises is that these processes are so complex that they will forever be beyond mortal understanding.

That's unduly pessimistic. Advances in many areas of astrophysics are rate-limited by lack of data. Gamma ray astronomy is an exception, at least for the moment. There's no denying the complexity that this data represents. But what this state of affairs represents is a golden opportunity for a new generation astrophysicists: an exciting problem just asking to be solved.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0911.0349: Gamma Ray Bursts: Back to the Blackboard

Humanity has long struggled over the nature of time. In the last century, physicists were shocked to discover that the arrow of time cannot be derived from the laws of physics which appear perfectly symmetric. For every solution for t, there seems to be an equally valid solution for -t (except in a few cases involving the weak force in which case the symmetry is more complex, involving charge, parity and time)

At first glance that looks puzzling. But after a few years reflection, most physicists agreed that it's perfectly possible for symmetric laws to give rise to asymmetric phenomena. Physicists have identified a number of such asymmetric phenomena that represent "arrows of time", says Claus Kiefer at the Institut fur Theoretische Physik in Cologne, Germany.

Perhaps the most famous is the thermodynamic arrow of time in which the entropy of a closed system must always increase. But there is also a quantum mechanical arrow of time in which a preferred direction of time is determined by decoherence and a gravitational arrow of time in which the preferred direction is determined by gravitational collapse.

"What is peculiar is the fact that the time direction of the phenomena is always the same," says Kiefer. It's almost as if the arrow of time were predetermined in some way. "The question raised by the presence of all these arrows is whether a common master arrow of time is behind all of them," he asks.

What master law might be responsible? Kiefer's conjecture is that the direction of time arises when quantum mechanics is applied to the universe as a whole, a branch of science known as quantum cosmology.

Central to this idea is the Wheeler-DeWitt equation that describes the quantum state of the universe as a whole, including both its gravitational and non-gravitational states.

This equation does not contain any parameter that is equivalent to our classical notion of time. In the Wheeler-DeWitt formulation, spacetime does not exist in any classical sense and particles do not have traditional trajectories in spacetime, just as particles do not have traditional trajectories in ordinary quantum mechanics. Instead all the information about the universe is encoded in its wavefunction

So how might an arrow of time arise? While the universe is considered homogeneous to the first degree, there is no preferred direction of time, says Kiefer. But he shows that when small inhomogeneities are taken into account, an asymmetry arises in this wavefunction.

He even says that with slight elaborations, this idea could be applied to an arrow of time in the multiverse.

What he fails to do, however, is provide a way of testing this idea. There is no way of determining experimentally whether the Wheeler-DeWitt formulation is really the origin of the arrow of time.

Of course, that's a common failure of most thinking about quantum cosmology (not to mention cosmology in general). And until physicists find a way to prune their ideas about time with experimental data, we can merely marvel at their creativity.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0910.5836 : Can the Arrow of Time be Understood from Quantum Cosmology?

Lasers are wonderful things. Want to measure the distance to the Moon, or create an artificial guide star for the active optics in a telescope or measure the chemical composition of the air? Then a high-powered laser is what you need.

But you can't just go blasting the atmosphere willy nilly; the Federal Aviation Authority has rules about this kind of thing. Anybody operating a laser in the atmosphere must have one or more observers looking for aircraft while the laser is in operation. Should an aircraft come within 25 degrees of the laser (as seen by the observer), the light must be shuttered.

That's a job that is fraught with potential errors so Bill Coles and co from the University of California, San Diego, have built a device that can do the aircraft spotting automatically. The system is based on the ability to detect the air traffic control transponders that are fitted to most aircraft. The idea is to use two antennas, both aligned with the laser beam. One antenna has a broad beam, the other a narrow beam.

As an aircraft approaches the beam, the broader beam picks up the transponder first, followed by the narrower beam. And the ratio of the signal from both antennas is a measure of the distance of the aircraft from the beam.

As soon as the aircraft gets too close, the beam is shuttered automatically.

The team says it has tested the idea at the Apache Point Observatory 3.5 m telescope in New Mexico and says it worked well. In the more congested airspace at UCSD near San Deigo International Airport, the team reported some problems with false triggers due to beam relfections which resulted in the shutter being closed for 80 per cent of the time during the busiest hours. But since most observatories are in more isolated areas, that shouldn't usually be a problem.

Simple, really.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0910.5685: A Radio System for Avoiding Illuminating Aircraft with a Laser Beam