<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Atoms and Strings in the Laboratory?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://asymptotia.com/2008/07/21/atoms-and-strings-in-the-laboratory/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://asymptotia.com/2008/07/21/atoms-and-strings-in-the-laboratory/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:04:53 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Blake Stacey</title>
		<link>http://asymptotia.com/2008/07/21/atoms-and-strings-in-the-laboratory/#comment-124830</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake Stacey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 16:23:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://asymptotia.com/?p=2466#comment-124830</guid>
		<description>Fair enough!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fair enough!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clifford</title>
		<link>http://asymptotia.com/2008/07/21/atoms-and-strings-in-the-laboratory/#comment-124747</link>
		<dc:creator>Clifford</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 23:17:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://asymptotia.com/?p=2466#comment-124747</guid>
		<description>None. Have not read it.

-cvj</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>None. Have not read it.</p>
<p>-cvj</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake Stacey</title>
		<link>http://asymptotia.com/2008/07/21/atoms-and-strings-in-the-laboratory/#comment-124745</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake Stacey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:25:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://asymptotia.com/?p=2466#comment-124745</guid>
		<description>You're welcome.  Any comments on &lt;a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.0399" rel="nofollow"&gt;arXiv:0808.0399&lt;/a&gt;?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re welcome.  Any comments on <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.0399" rel="nofollow">arXiv:0808.0399</a>?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clifford</title>
		<link>http://asymptotia.com/2008/07/21/atoms-and-strings-in-the-laboratory/#comment-124719</link>
		<dc:creator>Clifford</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:37:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://asymptotia.com/?p=2466#comment-124719</guid>
		<description>Thanks!

-cvj</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>-cvj</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake Stacey</title>
		<link>http://asymptotia.com/2008/07/21/atoms-and-strings-in-the-laboratory/#comment-124717</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake Stacey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:10:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://asymptotia.com/?p=2466#comment-124717</guid>
		<description>Shamit Kachru (Stanford) has &lt;a href="http://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/10" rel="nofollow"&gt;an article on this subject&lt;/a&gt; in the online APS publication &lt;i&gt;Physics.&lt;/i&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Shamit Kachru (Stanford) has <a href="http://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/10" rel="nofollow">an article on this subject</a> in the online APS publication <i>Physics.</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake Stacey</title>
		<link>http://asymptotia.com/2008/07/21/atoms-and-strings-in-the-laboratory/#comment-124123</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake Stacey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:17:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://asymptotia.com/?p=2466#comment-124123</guid>
		<description>Also, &lt;a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3665" rel="nofollow"&gt;Minic and Pleimling&lt;/a&gt; have recently taken the geometrization of the Schr&#246;dinger group and applied it to "ageing" in non-equilibrium dynamical systems (like a magnet suddenly quenched below its Curie temperature or liquid metal rapidly cooled to make a metallic glass).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also, <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3665" rel="nofollow">Minic and Pleimling</a> have recently taken the geometrization of the Schr&ouml;dinger group and applied it to &#8220;ageing&#8221; in non-equilibrium dynamical systems (like a magnet suddenly quenched below its Curie temperature or liquid metal rapidly cooled to make a metallic glass).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake Stacey</title>
		<link>http://asymptotia.com/2008/07/21/atoms-and-strings-in-the-laboratory/#comment-124117</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake Stacey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:18:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://asymptotia.com/?p=2466#comment-124117</guid>
		<description>I've been checking the follow-ups to Hartnoll &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt;'s work on cuprate superconductor phase transitions (see arXiv:0706.3215), in which they map density and magnetic field fluctuations, described by a 2+1D CFT, onto electric and magnetic charges of a black hole in a 3+1D AdS space.  It looks like AdS/CFT methods have yielded good qualitative or semi-quantitative agreement with experiment (arXiv:0711.3015 makes the comparison to graphene, too).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been checking the follow-ups to Hartnoll <i>et al.</i>&#8217;s work on cuprate superconductor phase transitions (see arXiv:0706.3215), in which they map density and magnetic field fluctuations, described by a 2+1D CFT, onto electric and magnetic charges of a black hole in a 3+1D AdS space.  It looks like AdS/CFT methods have yielded good qualitative or semi-quantitative agreement with experiment (arXiv:0711.3015 makes the comparison to graphene, too).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clifford</title>
		<link>http://asymptotia.com/2008/07/21/atoms-and-strings-in-the-laboratory/#comment-123989</link>
		<dc:creator>Clifford</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:50:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://asymptotia.com/?p=2466#comment-123989</guid>
		<description>I don't understand your question. The system of atoms in a trap in the lab is not relativistic. The quark-gluon plasma is relativistic. No interpretations needed... that's just the way it is.

Best,

-cvj</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t understand your question. The system of atoms in a trap in the lab is not relativistic. The quark-gluon plasma is relativistic. No interpretations needed&#8230; that&#8217;s just the way it is.</p>
<p>Best,</p>
<p>-cvj</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Plato</title>
		<link>http://asymptotia.com/2008/07/21/atoms-and-strings-in-the-laboratory/#comment-123987</link>
		<dc:creator>Plato</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:33:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://asymptotia.com/?p=2466#comment-123987</guid>
		<description>&lt;I&gt;The system is not relativistic. This is a highly non-relativistic system. So the usual string theories are not going to work quite the same way.&lt;/i&gt;

I then see you go on later. I was thinking here in terms of Navier Stokes. How could it not be relativistic? Am I misinterpreting the "Quark Gluon plasma" by such a connection?

&lt;i&gt;Well recall that one of the rather striking results from the plasma story was a measure of the hydrodynamic quantity the sheer viscosity of the fluid, usually presented as divided by the entropy &lt;/i&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>The system is not relativistic. This is a highly non-relativistic system. So the usual string theories are not going to work quite the same way.</i></p>
<p>I then see you go on later. I was thinking here in terms of Navier Stokes. How could it not be relativistic? Am I misinterpreting the &#8220;Quark Gluon plasma&#8221; by such a connection?</p>
<p><i>Well recall that one of the rather striking results from the plasma story was a measure of the hydrodynamic quantity the sheer viscosity of the fluid, usually presented as divided by the entropy </i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clifford</title>
		<link>http://asymptotia.com/2008/07/21/atoms-and-strings-in-the-laboratory/#comment-123944</link>
		<dc:creator>Clifford</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:01:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://asymptotia.com/?p=2466#comment-123944</guid>
		<description>Hi,

I'd say the current agreement is both qualitative and quantitative, in parts. I recommend reading the post that I did on this for some background to the ideas and how much we do and don't believe in how close agreement we can get. I think that it is best to think in terms of universality classes... capturing both qualitative and quantitative behaviour by being in a model that captures the same important features for robust reasons. In such cases, you don't expect to get precisely the same numbers to arbitrary precision, but you hope to be able to understand robustly why some qualitative and quantitative things are true. For example, showing that the plasma behaves like a strongly interacting fluid is one nice thing, matching with experiment... showing further that it robustly has an anomalously low shear viscosity is a very specific numerical thing as well... There's much more to do, including, as you say working to higher order in various quantities, as various authors have done and continue to do.

Thanks,

-cvj</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I&#8217;d say the current agreement is both qualitative and quantitative, in parts. I recommend reading the post that I did on this for some background to the ideas and how much we do and don&#8217;t believe in how close agreement we can get. I think that it is best to think in terms of universality classes&#8230; capturing both qualitative and quantitative behaviour by being in a model that captures the same important features for robust reasons. In such cases, you don&#8217;t expect to get precisely the same numbers to arbitrary precision, but you hope to be able to understand robustly why some qualitative and quantitative things are true. For example, showing that the plasma behaves like a strongly interacting fluid is one nice thing, matching with experiment&#8230; showing further that it robustly has an anomalously low shear viscosity is a very specific numerical thing as well&#8230; There&#8217;s much more to do, including, as you say working to higher order in various quantities, as various authors have done and continue to do.</p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>-cvj</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fred</title>
		<link>http://asymptotia.com/2008/07/21/atoms-and-strings-in-the-laboratory/#comment-123943</link>
		<dc:creator>Fred</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:09:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://asymptotia.com/?p=2466#comment-123943</guid>
		<description>Hi Clifford,

This is something I've been meaning to ask.  I'm not in string theory, so I have no idea about its applications to strongly-coupled systems such as the quark-gluon plasma.  One thing I do know (I think!) is that numerical predictions from the string models for the hydrodynamic quantity(ies) of interest aren't matching the observed values perfectly.  Is that correct?  If so, is this because of the model used or because we haven't taken the perturbation theory to a high enough order?  Is there reason to expect that we will achieve perfect agreement or is the current agreement more qualitative than quantitative?

Thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Clifford,</p>
<p>This is something I&#8217;ve been meaning to ask.  I&#8217;m not in string theory, so I have no idea about its applications to strongly-coupled systems such as the quark-gluon plasma.  One thing I do know (I think!) is that numerical predictions from the string models for the hydrodynamic quantity(ies) of interest aren&#8217;t matching the observed values perfectly.  Is that correct?  If so, is this because of the model used or because we haven&#8217;t taken the perturbation theory to a high enough order?  Is there reason to expect that we will achieve perfect agreement or is the current agreement more qualitative than quantitative?</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clifford</title>
		<link>http://asymptotia.com/2008/07/21/atoms-and-strings-in-the-laboratory/#comment-123936</link>
		<dc:creator>Clifford</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:18:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://asymptotia.com/?p=2466#comment-123936</guid>
		<description>Yes... people are thinking about that sort of thing too... there are already several condensed matter type constructions on the market coming from AdS_4 -type duals where the dual physics is indeed 2+1 dimensional. I'm not sure how advanced things have got since I last looked at the applications to specific realizations via experimental systems and what the measured quantities are... Maybe someone else reading who knows might be able to give an update or point to refs?

Cheers,

-cvj</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes&#8230; people are thinking about that sort of thing too&#8230; there are already several condensed matter type constructions on the market coming from AdS_4 -type duals where the dual physics is indeed 2+1 dimensional. I&#8217;m not sure how advanced things have got since I last looked at the applications to specific realizations via experimental systems and what the measured quantities are&#8230; Maybe someone else reading who knows might be able to give an update or point to refs?</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>-cvj</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake Stacey</title>
		<link>http://asymptotia.com/2008/07/21/atoms-and-strings-in-the-laboratory/#comment-123931</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake Stacey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:37:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://asymptotia.com/?p=2466#comment-123931</guid>
		<description>If you don't mind a dumb question from somebody who knows more fancy words than actual physics ideas, I have one to ask.

&lt;blockquote&gt;The successful duals of last time were based around the AdS/CFT-like systems (variants thereof, but in that spirit), which are inherently duals of relativistic quantum field theories, appropriate to issues in particle and nuclear physics in collider contexts where there's a lot of stuff banging together and rushing around at significant fractions of the speed of light. Not so here. Instead we've got nice, peaceful cold Lithium atoms puttering around in a blob of gas trapped in a trap in a lab. Very non-relativistic.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I recall some business about &lt;a href="http://www-als.lbl.gov/als/science/sci_archive/144dirac_fermions.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;electrons trapped in graphene sheets&lt;/a&gt; behaving as if they were relativistic particles, that is to say, obeying a massless version of the Dirac Equation.  If there were a system wherein these massless Dirac quasiparticles were strongly coupled, might it be more directly tractable through AdS/CFT-like dualities?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you don&#8217;t mind a dumb question from somebody who knows more fancy words than actual physics ideas, I have one to ask.</p>
<blockquote><p>The successful duals of last time were based around the AdS/CFT-like systems (variants thereof, but in that spirit), which are inherently duals of relativistic quantum field theories, appropriate to issues in particle and nuclear physics in collider contexts where there&#8217;s a lot of stuff banging together and rushing around at significant fractions of the speed of light. Not so here. Instead we&#8217;ve got nice, peaceful cold Lithium atoms puttering around in a blob of gas trapped in a trap in a lab. Very non-relativistic.</p></blockquote>
<p>I recall some business about <a href="http://www-als.lbl.gov/als/science/sci_archive/144dirac_fermions.html" rel="nofollow">electrons trapped in graphene sheets</a> behaving as if they were relativistic particles, that is to say, obeying a massless version of the Dirac Equation.  If there were a system wherein these massless Dirac quasiparticles were strongly coupled, might it be more directly tractable through AdS/CFT-like dualities?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake Stacey</title>
		<link>http://asymptotia.com/2008/07/21/atoms-and-strings-in-the-laboratory/#comment-123911</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake Stacey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 05:05:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://asymptotia.com/?p=2466#comment-123911</guid>
		<description>Now &lt;i&gt;that&lt;/i&gt; is exceedingly nifty.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now <i>that</i> is exceedingly nifty.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
