Colloquium

Theoretical neuroscience, like theoretical physics, attempts to discover and quantify the basic principles governing the systems it studies. Currently, however, there are very few attempts at unification across the levels of organization found in the brain. In this talk, I will describe the biological mechanisms of interest to neuroscientists, and describe a quantitative method for constructing sophisticated models of these mechanisms. Through a series of examples, I will show how the three principles that make up this method are general, allowing us to better understand a broad range of complex behaviour in a unified manner.

Exactly half a century after Minkowski’s justly famous lecture, Dirac’s efforts to quantize gravity led him “to doubt how fundamental the four-dimensional requirement in physics is”. Dirac does not appear to have explored this doubt further, but I shall argue that it needs to be considered seriously. The fact is that Einstein and Minkowski fused space and time into a four-dimensional continuum but never directly posed the two most fundamental questions in dynamics: What is time? What is motion? It was an historical accident that Einstein attempted to implement Mach’s principle after he had created special relativity; otherwise he would have been forced to address these questions, which have never been properly considered. I shall show how they can be answered and suggest that: 1) time and space are utterly different; 2) the dynamical law of the universe may define absolute simultaneity in a manner that is still consistent with local validity of Minkowski’s marvellous notion of spacetime.

According to the second law of thermodynamics the entropy of a system cannot decrease by adiabatic state transformations. In quantum mechanics, the \'degree of entanglement\' of a state cannot increase under state transformations of a certain kind (local operations assisted by classical communication) In this talk I will explore the significance of the analogy between these two statements.

The last years have seen tremendous progress in simulations of inspiral and coalescence of binary black holes. I will present recent results of the Caltech/Cornell collaboration simulating inspiral and collision of two black holes. Furthermore, while currently no talk on numerical relativity seems to be complete without a discussion of binary black hole coalescence, there are many more aspects of Einstein\'s equations that can be probed numerically. I will discuss some of these unexpected and intriguing features, among them black holes with five horizons and super-extremal black holes.

The theory of Quantum Mechanics requires \'completeness\', that is, we need to know the complete set of physically allowed states before we can reliably compute quantum mechanical amplitudes. Among these possible states are microscopic black holes, since they are valid solutions to Einstein\'s equations for the gravitational force. However, a quantum description of black holes requires a drastic revision of our notions of space and time, in particular if we were to accept the interpretation of their microstates as given by superstring theories. The logical foundations of our physical world view are touched upon here. A natural sounding solution of our problems here could come from a re-interpretation of what quantum mechanics really is. The first thing to dispose of should be all references to \'magic\' and \'mystery\' when dealing with quantum mechanics or string theory.

I will describe antiferromagnets and superconductors near quantum phase transitions. There is a remarkable analogy between their dynamics and the holographic description of Hawking radiation from black holes. I will show how insights from this analogy have shed light on experiments on the cuprate high temperature superconductors.

Graphene, a single atomic layer of graphite, was created only a few years ago. It is a remarkable system, whose law energy effective theory has a lot in common with relativistic 2 + 1 dimensional ones. Graphene allows tabletop experiments for observing nonperturbative relativistic phenomena, most notably spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking both in vacuum and in an external magnetic field. The latter is in turn crucial for the dynamics of Quantum Hall effect in this system. I will review the basic physics and the latest results obtained both in the experimental studies and the theory of graphene.

Hawking\'s black hole information paradox is one of the great thought experiments in physics. It points to a breakdown of some central principle of physics, though which one breaks down is still in dispute. It has led to the discovery of ideas that seem to be key to unifying quantum mechanics and gravity, namely the holographic principle and gauge/gravity duality. I review this subject, and discuss ongoing work and future directions.

I will summarize current observational constraints in cosmology with emphasis on what we have learned about the properties of the primordial density perturbations. I will describe future directions including observations of high redshift neutral hydrogen through is 21 cm line.

The Great Plague of London, which claimed the lives of one fifth of London\'s population in 1665, is one of the most famous epidemics of all time. We have recently digitized the mortality records for London during the Great Plague, yielding weekly data for each of the 130 parishes. I will describe the temporal and spatial dynamics of the plague, and discuss our efforts to estimate the transmissibility of the infectious agent. I will also briefly describe other projects in progress inspired by disease-specific mortality records for London over the past 650 years.

There are two notions that play a central role in the mathematical theory of computation. One is that of a computable problem, i.e., of a problem that can, in principle, be solved by an (idealized) computer. It is known that there exist problems that \'have answers\', but for which those answers are not computable. The other is that of the difficulty of a computation, i.e. of the number of (idealized) steps required actually to carry out that computation. It is known that, given any appropriate \'degree of difficulty\', there exists a problem that, while computable, is at least that difficult. These two notions, while purely mathematical, are designed to reflect, in some broad sense, the physics of the computation process. But there are indications that physics may have something further to say about them. Indeed, it has been suggested that, by using general relativity, some problems that are (mathematically) non-computable may become computable; and that, by using quantum mechanics, some problems that are (mathematically) difficult may become less so. Are there, in principle, any limitations on what physics can do for us in this area?