Colloquium

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?

At a very basic level, physics is about what we can say about propositions like \'A has a value in S\' (or \'A is in S\' for short), where A is some physical quantity like energy, position, momentum etc. of a physical system, and S is some subset of the real line. In classical physics, given a state of the system, every proposition of the form \'A is in S\' is either true or false, and thus classical physics is realist in the sense that there is a \'way things are\'. In contrast to that, quantum theory only delivers a probability of \'A is in S\' being true. The usual instrumentalist interpretation of the formalism leading to these probabilities involves an external observer, measurements etc.In a future theory of quantum gravity/cosmology, we will have to treat the whole universe as a quantum system, which renders instrumentalism meaningless, since there is no external observer. Moreover, space-time presumably does not have a smooth continuum structure at small scales, and possibly physical quantities will take their values in some other mathematical structure than the real numbers, which are the \'mathematical continuum\'. In my talk, I will show how the use of topos theory, which is a branch of category theory, may help to formulate physical theories in a way that (a) is neo-realist in the sense that all propositions \'A is in S\' do have truth values and (b) does not depend fundamentally on the continuum in the form of the real numbers. After introducing topoi and their internal logic, I will identify suitable topoi for classical and quantum physics and show which structures within these topoi are of physical significance. This is still very far from a theory of quantum gravity, but it can already shed some light on ordinary quantum theory, since we avoid the usual instrumentalism. Moreover, the formalism is general enough to allow for major generalisations. I will conclude with some more general remarks on related developments.

It is common to assert that the discovery of quantum theory overthrew our classical conception of nature. But what, precisely, was overthrown? Providing a rigorous answer to this question is of practical concern, as it helps to identify quantum technologies that outperform their classical counterparts, and of significance for modern physics, where progress may be slowed by poor physical intuitions and where the ability to apply quantum theory in a new realm or to move beyond quantum theory necessitates a deep understanding of the principles upon which it is based. In this talk, I demonstrate that a large part of quantum theory can be obtained from a single innovation relative to classical theories, namely, that there is a fundamental restriction on the sorts of statistical distributions over classical states that can be prepared. This restriction implies a fundamental limit on the amount of knowledge that any observer can have about the classical state. I will also discuss the quantum phenomena that are not captured by this principle, and I will end with a few speculations on what conceptual innovations might underlie the latter set and what might be the origin of the statistical restriction.

The history of human knowledge is often highlighted by our efforts to explore beyond our apparent horizon. In this talk, I will describe how this challenge has now evolved into our quest to understand the physics at/beyond the cosmological horizon, some twenty orders of magnitude above Columbus\' original goal. I then recount how the study of physics on the horizon scale has led to the successful development of inflationary cosmology, and how we can use the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect in the Cosmic Microwave Background to probe cosmological physics, such as late-time inflation, the nature of gravity, and primordial non-gaussianity on the horizon scale.

A convergence of climate, resource, technological, and economic stresses gravely threaten the future of humankind. Scientists have a special role in humankind\\\'s response, because only rigorous science can help us understand the complexities and potential consequences of these stresses. Diminishing the threat they pose will require profound social, institutional, and technological changes -- changes that will be opposed by powerful status-quo special interests. Do scientists have a responsibility to articulate the dangers of inaction to a broader event beyond simply publishing their findings in scholarly journals? Should they become more actively involved in the politics of global change?