A Great Documentary by NOVA: Einstein's Quantum Riddle

A new documentary by NOVA follows recent experiments which aim to verify Bell's theorem at the Cosmic scale in order to address possible loopholes in Bell's theory [1,2]. It appears from the results of this experiment that quantum entanglement is a reality of our Universe and that Einstein's criticism of this idea (which he called "spooky action at a distance") might not be correct. Einstein, along with Podolsky and Rosen, wrote a well known paper which proposed the so called EPR paradox according to which quantum mechanics, due to the presence of hidden variables, is incomplete. Bell's theorem, which was verified experimentally, disfavored the hidden variable interpretation and appear to indicate that quantum entanglement is a reality of our Universe.

I also believe that quantum entanglement might take us to a world beyond Einsteins theories of space-time. It appears to indicate that there are other modes of information transfer in the Universe. As I always say, light is a very defective way to transfer information because it is limited in speed, changes speed in different materials, bends in strong gravitational fields and also our brain intrinsically assumes that light travels in a straight line. There has to be a better mode of information transfer in the Universe. Time will tell whether we will be able to harness this interesting phenomenon to build quantum computers that lay the foundations of future technologies.

It also appears that there are clear indications from such experiments that we need to start thinking of ideas beyond Einstein's theory of space time. The present academic atmosphere, however, is very conservative when it comes to Einstein's theories. You can never question Einstein or you are treated as a science 'heretic'. In the documentary Sean Carroll actually says something very interesting that reflects the ongoing academic culture:

" It's a very strange thing that ever since the 1930s the idea of sitting and thinking hard about the foundations of quantum mechanics has been disreputable among professional physicists. When people tried to do that they were kicked out of physics departments"

Similarly, thinking about Einsteins theories from a different perspective can also mean that you have to give up your career. This is one of the reasons progress in science has been crawling in the last few decades.

[1] https://youtu.be/EGF34iPfPDY

[2] https://physicsworld.com/a/cosmic-bell-test-uses-light-from-ancient-quasars/

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

Invest in Alternative Ideas Instead of a Future Collider

Recently there has been a lot of debate going on regarding CERN's announcement of a Future Cicular Collider (FCC) that will be able to reach energies of 100 TeV [1]. The circumference of this new collider is planned to be around 60 miles (more than 3 times that of the LHC) and it will cost around $22 billion (more than  twice the money to build the LHC) [2]. The question a lot of physicists are asking is whether this investment is worth while if Higgs boson is the only particle the LHC has discovered. 

As Sabine Hossenfelder points out, one of the main reasons for building the LHC was arguments from naturalness. One way to explain this problem is as follows: The Higgs boson receives large corrections to its mass and one reason that its mass is small (~ 125 GeV) is that there is new physics at the TeV scale. So, if no new physics is discovered at the LHC then we might as well start thinking about new directions in particle physics. I asked Prof. Matt Strassler a question regarding this on his website a while ago and he replied as follows:

"Me: If no SUSY and extra dimensions, then what in your opinion is the next best way to solve the hierarchy problem?"

"Prof. Strassler: I have not been a big fan of either supersymmetry OR extra dimensions in the past few years, but I have no other good ideas that would replace them. The best other ideas out there involve various forms of compositeness for the Higgs particle. And then there’s the possibility that the hierarchy problem is purely a selection effect. All I can say is that I’m hoping nature will give us a clue soon, because without additional clues I do not know what to think, and have not known what to think for over a decade." [3]

So it appears that Nature has given us a clue and that is to rethink our approach in particle physics. Also when Prof. Matt Strassler says that he does not know of "other good ideas that would replace them" he is actually representing the current mind set of most particle physicists. Currently, the community is not sure which direction to move in.

So, what should we invest in if not the LHC, this is indeed a difficult question. Remember that one of the most important discoveries made by the LHC is the Higgs boson. The Higgs mechanism was inspired from spontaneous symmetry breaking in superconductors. I believe that this discovery itself is giving us a hint on where to go next. Yes, I think that particle physicist should invest this money in finding alternative ways to test the theories they have been working on for the last few decades. Condensed matter physics can be the next play ground for particle physicists. Instead of spending $22 billion on the next collider we should, may be, build an institute or fund programs that look at interdisciplinary approaches between the two fields. 

There have already been some effort placed in this approach. If the Higgs mechanism can be manifested in a condensed matter system, why not test other ideas? For example, there is an indication that supersymmetry might be manifested in a condensed matter system [4]. Similarly there are a lot of common problems in high energy physics and condensed matter physics that the community might think of [5]. But, is the community willing to change their approach? It is always difficult to convince the older generation of doing something new because they find it difficult to change their ways. We should therefore let the younger generation of particle physicists have more say in these issues.

So I think that particle physicists need to return to their black boards and find new and economical ways to test their ideas until they have a definite direction to go to yet higher energies.

[1] https://home.cern/news/press-release/accelerators/international-collaboration-publishes-concept-design-post-lhc

[2] https://goo.gl/zjfoDx

[3] https://profmattstrassler.com/2012/04/24/is-supersymmetry-ruled-out-yet/

[4] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140409155748.htm

[5] https://science.energy.gov/~/media/hep/pdf/Reports/HEP-BES_Roundtable_Report.pdf