Professor John Iliopoulos (ENS Paris)
My aim in this paper is twofold: (i) to distinguish two notions of naturalness employed in BSM physics and (ii) to argue that recognizing this distinction has methodological consequences. One notion of naturalness is an “autonomy of scales” requirement: it prohibits sensitive dependence of an effective field theory’s low-energy observables on precise specification of the theory’s description of cutoff-scale physics. I will argue that considerations from the general structure of effective field theory provide justification for the role this notion of naturalness has played in BSM model construction. A second, distinct notion construes naturalness as a statistical principle requiring that the values of the parameters in an effective field theory be “likely” given some appropriately chosen measure on some appropriately circumscribed space of models. I argue that these two notions are historically and conceptually related but are motivated by distinct theoretical considerations and admit of distinct kinds of solution.
Read more at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.08975.pdf
The harmonic oscillator plays a central role in physics describing the dynamics of a wide range of systems close to stable equilibrium points. The nonrelativistic one-dimensional spring-mass system is considered a prototype representative of it. It is usually assumed and galvanized in textbooks that the equation of motion of a relativistic harmonic oscillator is given by the same equation as the nonrelativistic one with the mass M at the tip multiplied by the relativistic factor 1/(1−v2/c2)1/2. Although the solution of such an equation may depict some physical systems, it does not describe, in general, one-dimensional relativistic spring-mass oscillators under the influence of elastic forces. In recognition to the importance of such a system to physics, we fill a gap in the literature and offer a full relativistic treatment for a system composed of a spring attached to an inertial wall, holding a mass M at the end.
Read more at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.13365.pdf
A. Plastino, M. C. Rocca, G. L. Ferri
Verlinde conjectured that gravitation is an emergent entropic force. This surprising conjecture was proved in [Physica A 505 (2018) 190] within a purely classical context. Here, we appeal to a quantum environment to deal with the conjecture in the case of bosons and consider also the classical limit of quantum mechanics (QM)….
Read more at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.01330.pdf
In 1974, Stephen Hawking theoretically discovered that black holes emit thermal radiation and have a characteristic temperature, known as the Hawking temperature. The aim of this paper is to present a simple heuristic derivation of the Hawking temperature, based on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The result obtained coincides exactly with Hawking’s original finding. In parallel, this work seeks to clarify the physical meaning of Hawking’s discovery. This article may be useful as pedagogical material in a high school physics course or in an introductory undergraduate physics course.
Read more at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.05121.pdf
J. Gamboa, F. Mendez, M. B. Paranjape, Benoit Sirois
The twin paradox, which evokes from the the idea that two twins may age differently because of their relative motion, has been studied and explained ever since it was first described in 1906, the year after special relativity was invented. The question can be asked: “Is there anything more to say?” It seems evident that acceleration has a role to play, however this role has largely been brushed aside since it is not required in calculating, in a preferred reference frame, the relative age difference of the twins. Indeed, if one tries to calculate the age difference from the point of the view of the twin that undergoes the acceleration, then the role of the acceleration is crucial and cannot be dismissed. In the resolution of the twin paradox, the role of the acceleration has been denigrated to the extent that it has been treated as a red-herring. This is a mistake and shows a clear misunderstanding of the twin paradox.
Read more at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.02148.pdf