Daniel Green

Daniel Green

@dangreen.bsky.social

Associate Professor @UCSanDiego, particle theory and cosmology

991 followers253 following145 posts

"Putative dark matter particles with masses below around 1 MeV are not ruled out by astronomical observations" Fact check: astrophysics provides a constraint that is 20 orders of magnitude stronger than this new result.

Physics Magazine@physicsmagazine.aps.org

Putative dark matter particles with masses below around 1 MeV are not ruled out by astronomical observations, but they are difficult to detect directly. Researchers have now explored this mass range with a new device, a superconducting nanowire single-photon detector.

The paper is out here: pole.uchicago.edu/public/data/... Of personal interest: the full range of neutrino masses allowed by neutrino oscillations are now excluded at 98% confidence!

pole.uchicago.edupole.uchicago.edu
South Pole Telescope@sptelescope.bsky.social

SPT-3G D1 Webinar: CMB TT/TE/EE power spectra and cosmology from 2019-2020 observations from SPT-3G Main Field - Now Live!!! youtu.be/TRJ5sfAwnao @NSF @doescience @UChicago #NSFfunded #DOEfunded #Antarctica

Daniel Green reposted

Is dark energy weakening? DESI’s results are ambiguous You've heard the results last week: the DESI collaboration announced evidence for evolving dark energy. But that's not the only interpretation when the full suite of data just doesn't add up. bigthink.com/starts-with-... #space #physics

bigthink.comIs dark energy weakening? DESI's results are ambiguousDESI, by mapping galaxies, has claimed they see evidence for dark energy evolving by getting weaker. But that's only one interpretation.

PSA: when a collaboration whose name starts with DE says they have found evidence for non-standard dark energy, the community should take that interpretation with more skepticism. DESI does not show that w0wa explains there data. Eg neutrino mass remains negative even with w0wa

View full thread

The signal that is being reported everywhere violates the null energy condition and is (theoretically) a very very unlikely interpretation. But even without that theory prior, there is way too little skepticism of their interpretation. The data is only 7 points, it could be many things

PSA: when a collaboration whose name starts with DE says they have found evidence for non-standard dark energy, the community should take that interpretation with more skepticism. DESI does not show that w0wa explains there data. Eg neutrino mass remains negative even with w0wa

Dispersion relations have a certain UV-IR character that seems to run in the face of naive EFT intuition: the structure of EFT is constrained the nature of the UV completion. Instead, they are a precise distillation of EFT: the UV determines the local interactions (and that's it)

This paper shows that the connection between soft theorems and asymptotic symmetries for scattering in flat space is identical to the relationship between soft theorems and asymptotic symmetries in cosmology. This shows a unity of soft theorems that should be more widely known.

I really enjoy this paper for the level of clarity and detail given to understanding the CMB. Most discussions are only 10-20% accurate and then leave Boltzmann codes to do the rest. Peaks are cleaner than the full spectra, making them a nice bridge between theory and data.

This model has no real observational value: it is too baroque to be the real world, and you can't tell it is a Bell test if you don't know it is the right model of inflation. Yet, it proves that cosmic dynamics, rather than direct quantum measurements, can encode the quantum nature of the universe

This paper includes the derivation of the change of the 4/5 -> 16/15 factor in the diffusion damping coefficient from polarization. This was first pointed out by Kaiser but I find their treatment particularly easy to follow, perhaps because one of the authors was an undergraduate at the time

Together, I think these papers illustrate how difficult it is to solve the CC problem, and what taking the problem seriously actually means in terms of theories. It is possible that such a resolution could exist, but it way more constrained by data than one might have naively expected

Ruling out this idea was a key motivation for the initial work on the conformal bootstrap arxiv.org/abs/0807.0004 This program has had much broader applications in understanding CFTs. However, the original idea is still interesting, particularly for models with weakly broken conformal invariance.

Their explanation is very physical - you create a nearly vanishing energy state by acting with a generator locally. But for ST symmetries, different generators are already related by such a local functions of coordinates. I find other approaches (like inverse Higgs) are less clear

McDonald and Roy also give this fantastic explanation for why you should care about this subject: every mode costs about $1000 so even a small improvement in modeling translates into Billions of $ in modes. I regularly use this argument for explaining the value of theory.

Two masses are moved using a quantum process so that the gravity pulls in opposite directions. If gravity was only the quantum average, there would be no force. It seems like a silly paper at first, but this is a serious constraint if you take the idea of classical gravity seriously.

Positivity bounds has become a huge subject following Adams et al, but in the meantime Pham and Truong's paper was mostly forgotten. In '85, EFT thinking hadn't really taken hold, perhaps making this less significant. But the people developing EFTs in the 90s knew this paper