Hugh Everett, creator of this radical idea during a drunken debate more than 60 years ago, died before he could see his theory gain widespread popularity …
W. G. Unruh
Newton in the Principia used the inverse squared force law (and Galileo’s idea of compound motion) to derive Kepler’s laws. As usual for him, the proof is a purely geometric proof, using no calculus. Maxwell  gave a very different proof. In the 1960’s, Feynman gave a geometric proof very similar to Maxwell’s. Finally, Vogt in the American Journal of Physics also carried out a derivation which started out with the energy conservation equation and the angular momentum conservation to again present a geometric proof. In all of these cases, the derivation that the orbit actually is an ellipse was somewhat torturous, difficult to follow, and non obvious. In the following, following initially the Maxwell-Feynman’s approach, the derivation that the orbit is an ellipse is simplified about as much as possible.
Read more at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.06770.pdf
Gian Francesco Giudice
In an imaginary conversation with Guido Altarelli, I express my views on the status of particle physics beyond the Standard Model and its future prospects.
read more at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.07663.pdf
Robert C. Hilborn
This tutorial leads the reader through the details of calculating the properties of gravitational waves from orbiting binaries, such as two orbiting black holes. Using analogies with electromagnetic radiation, the tutorial presents a calculation that produces the same dependence on the masses of the orbiting objects, the orbital frequency, and the mass separation as does the linear version of General Relativity (GR). However, the calculation yields polarization, angular distributions, and overall power results that differ from those of GR. Nevertheless, the calculation produces waveforms that are very similar to the pre-binary-merger portions of the signals observed by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO-VIRGO) collaboration. The tutorial should be easily understandable by students who have taken a standard upper-level undergraduate course in electromagnetism.
Gerard ‘t Hooft
From what is known today about the elementary particles of matter, and the forces that control their behavior, it may be observed that still a host of obstacles must be overcome that are standing in the way of further progress of our understanding. Most researchers conclude that drastically new concepts must be investigated, new starting points are needed, older structures and theories, in spite of their successes, will have to be overthrown, and new, superintelligent questions will have to be asked and investigated. In short, they say that we shall need new physics. Here, we argue in a different manner. Today, no prototype, or toy model, of any so-called Theory of Everything exists, because the demands required of such a theory appear to be conflicting. The demands that we propose include locality, special and general relativity, together with a fundamental finiteness not only of the forces and amplitudes, but also of the set of Nature’s dynamical variables. We claim that the two remaining ingredients that we have today, Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity, indeed are coming a long way towards satisfying such elementary requirements. Putting everything together in a Grand Synthesis is like solving a gigantic puzzle. We argue that we need the correct analytical tools to solve this puzzle. Finally, it seems to be obvious that this solution will give room neither for “Divine Intervention”, nor for “Free Will”, an observation that, all by itself, can be used as a clue. We claim that this reflects on our understanding of the deeper logic underlying quantum mechanics.
read more at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.02874.pdf