Physics Discussion Thread

The Technology & Economic Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to Technological and Economic developments in India. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13980
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Physics Discussion Thread

Post by A_Gupta »

US Constitution:
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Of course, the Qatari jet was accepted without Consent of the Congress. But then Trump is not holding an Office of Trust :roll:

But back to the topic - I don't think India needs a new aristocracy - even if it is an aristocracy of high achievement. A high achiever can be an OCI or become an Indian citizen. No special dual citizenship rights are proper or necessary.
bala
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3221
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Re: Physics Discussion Thread

Post by bala »

^^ the Qatari jet was NOT accepted by DJT personally, it was sent to DoD and they took the Jet on behalf of the US. This not subject to the Constitution clause. Such FUD is created by the Dumbocrats who create needless crisis.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11464
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Physics Discussion Thread

Post by Amber G. »

Friendly Request:

Let’s PLEASE keep this thread focused on the core issue!

Some of the comments about Trump, Democrats('Dumbocrats :eek: really ??? ) , Qatari jets, or voting rights debates unrelated to this case are taking the discussion FAR off-topic.

If you'd like to debate those subjects, kindly take them to another thread. Let's avoid trolling or derailing a thoughtful conversation. Thanks!
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11464
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Physics Discussion Thread

Post by Amber G. »

Just to clarify a few points:

- The issue raised in the article isn’t about creating an “aristocracy” but about the rigidity of rulesGeim himself said he would've declined the knighthood if he'd known. It’s not about entitlement, but how systems sometimes punish people unnecessarily, even when they’ve brought honor to a country.

- The comparison here is less about privilege and more about how nations treat their most distinguished citizenslike how Pakistan stripped Nobel laureate Abdus Salam of recognition and citizenship. It's a cautionary tale.

- And as for India, a lot has changed in recent years. Earlier, those who took foreign citizenship were seen with suspicion. But now, people like Field Medalist Manjul Bhargava are welcomed, honored, and invited back to contribute. That shift in mindset is something to build on—not dismiss.

---
In short: Earlier, India’s attitude to those who “left” was often tinged with skepticism. Today, the government sees them as ambassadors of India’s talent and soft power. The contrast is striking—especially when compared to the past, or to countries like the Netherlands or Pakistan that have penalized scientists like Geim or Salam.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13980
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Physics Discussion Thread

Post by A_Gupta »

Amber G. wrote: 07 Jul 2025 23:09 Friendly Request:

Let’s PLEASE keep this thread focused on the core issue!

Friendly Request:

Maybe you will explain on a suitable thread why the dual citizenship issue, which you brought up, has anything to do with physics. Or even your post just above.

Delete them, and I will delete mine.
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14160
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Physics Discussion Thread

Post by Vayutuvan »

I think there is skepticism of Indian establishment that they are anti-intellectual. It is not the case now and never was irrespective of who was in power. We can go back even to the beginning of our civilization. Scientists were always given respect and remuneration. None of them were persecuted as far as I know.

These fears of "stripping citizenship" (maybe some are afraid that their OCIs would get cancelled) are highly misplaced.

Equating what Dutch had done to their citizens or (of all the countries what Pakistan had done to their citizens) with India or the US (here I am reading between the lines and connecting the poster @Amber G.'s complaint about his friend who never took US citizenship) is beyond the pale.

And oh, definitely totally OT in this thread.

My last on this.
Last edited by Vayutuvan on 09 Jul 2025 07:33, edited 1 time in total.
vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4508
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Physics Discussion Thread

Post by vera_k »

Stripping citizenship like what the USA did to Bobby Fischer seems a peculiar Western/Pakistani concept.

Is there a similar case out of India?

Think here that not taking US citizenship is the right move if one is fearful of being stripped of citizenship for breaking whatever law has been dreamed up.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13980
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Physics Discussion Thread

Post by A_Gupta »

And as for India, a lot has changed in recent years. Earlier, those who took foreign citizenship were seen with suspicion. But now, people like Field Medalist Manjul Bhargava are welcomed, honored, and invited back to contribute. That shift in mindset is something to build on—not dismiss.
Does 1968/69 count as "recent years"?

Har Gobind Khorana, 1968 Nobel Laureate: "Although he became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1966, Khorana was born in India and received his early education there. India has recognized his achievements with awards such as the Padma Vibhushan, the country's second-highest civilian award, given in 1969. He was also elected a foreign member of the Indian Academy of Sciences."

=====
Regarding physics, this thread and in general, I will say this once (OT) and then fall silent.

1. Science, like physics or chemistry, is about what is. It informs on how to achieve something, and it informs on what is possible to achieve.

2. Science doesn't provide special insight into what should be - in particular, whether a country should have aristocratic titles, whether a country should allow its citizens to accept aristocratic titles, whether a country should reinstate citizenship of a person who renounced citizenship and so on.

3. There can be many legitimate opinions of what should be. If the science on a topic is sufficiently mature, there is usually only one legitimate opinion about what is. (The frontiers of science are where there are still legitimate divergent opinions.)

3. Separation of duties - organizations and governments often do not let one person play two roles where the roles may have conflicting interests. Sometimes it is a safety feature. Scientists really need to think about separation of duties in (a) the role of scientist, trying to figure out what is and (b) the role of activist or policy maker, trying to advocate for what should be.

4. Scientists need to respect separation of duties:

The public distrust of science is in part because scientists increasingly play both roles. The public has suspicions that activism/policy is distorting the science. The scientist really has to be devoted to one role or the other. Either they are devoted to science and pronounce on what is, what can be, and how to; but keep silent on what should be. Or else, they become activists and don't claim any special status in the debate by virtue of having been a scientist.

5. One time appeal:

I suspect you are not going to agree with me on the above. My friendly request is to then separate your "what is" posts from "what should be" posts, or else we will not be able to remain on topic.

Over and out on this topic.
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14160
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Physics Discussion Thread

Post by Vayutuvan »

A_Gupta wrote: 09 Jul 2025 17:36 ...
Good post. I want to highlight the following point though.

3. Separation of duties - organizations and governments often do not let one person play two roles where the roles may have conflicting interests. Sometimes it is a safety feature. Scientists really need to think about separation of duties in (a) the role of scientist, trying to figure out what is and (b) the role of activist or policy maker, trying to advocate for what should be.
...
Currently there is quite a bit of push in scientific circles, especially at the topmost levels, for scientists to become activists and influence policy makers. There are even calls for scientists to become politicians.

If you look at any large institution that does science, the top people have to be politically savvy and be able to get consensus on the direction a particular area of science should take. Only mathematics is, to a large extent, shielded from such pressures. But not statistics, especially applied statistics.

For most good researchers, upward mobility is only through administration.

Very very recently I had drinks with my PhD batchmate who has taken up Chair of the top five CS departments in the country. I said I am very proud of her as she was my batchmate. Her response was that she really did not want to be the chair but that was the deal. She will have to become the chair or no position. Lot of researchers do not want to take on the administrative and committee work as it distracts from their research. But then universities want leaders. They are willing to cannibalize researchers so that they can get funding which is dwindling even in CS now that it is quite nature.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11464
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Physics Discussion Thread

Post by Amber G. »

A_Gupta wrote: 09 Jul 2025 17:36
And as for India, a lot has changed in recent years. Earlier, those who took foreign citizenship were seen with suspicion. But now, people like Field Medalist Manjul Bhargava are welcomed, honored, and invited back to contribute. That shift in mindset is something to build on—not dismiss.
Does 1968/69 count as "recent years"?

Har Gobind Khorana, 1968 Nobel Laureate: "Although he became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1966, Khorana was born in India and received his early education there. India has recognized his achievements with awards such as the Padma Vibhushan, the country's second-highest civilian award, given in 1969. He was also elected a foreign member of the Indian Academy of Sciences."

==
<snip>
Hi A_Guptaji,

Welcome back — it’s been nearly a decade since your last post in physics dhaga, I think? Good to see you return. A quick heads-up that in the meantime, this physics thread (which I’ve been contributing to for over 900 posts now) has had its ups and downs. There have been times it veered off into some trolling territory — like when I posted about LIGO about the time you were commenting here more regularly- — and many of the "usual suspects" resorted to personal jabs. Ironically, several of the scientists they mocked later went on to win Nobel Prizes and global recognition. (Thread required a MAJOR cleanup with unbelievable nonsense - I have chosen to ignore those kind of obvious trolling)

That said, I absolutely agree that Har Gobind Khorana is a standout — and in some ways, an exception to the broader trend. He did receive the Padma Vibhushan in 1969, not long after his Nobel win. But I’d gently note: he’s more the exception than the norm.

There’s a long list of brilliant Indian-origin scientists who either became foreign citizens or worked abroad, and whose contributions were not sufficiently acknowledged or celebrated in India until more recently. And yes, I’ve tried to document DOZENS of such cases over the years and even posted long posts about them in BRF ( I advise you and others seriously interested to see them).

Some, like Narinder Singh Kapany — the "father of fiber optics" — (I Mentioned him at least 10 times in physics dhaga in details and celebrated when he got padm-vibhushan) received major Indian awards like the Padma Vibhushan only posthumously, after people like me and others lobbied hard. He is not alone others like E.C.G. Sudarshan or Mehta (of the Mehta–Dyson ensembles) often remained under the radar in India, despite major international impact. (As I said, there are DOZENS such scientists I have mentioned in physics dhaga -- many of these I personally lobbied to powers to be)

To illustrate the broader shift in attitude in recent years — particularly under the Modi govt’s outreach to the scientific diaspora — here are a few relevant examples (From physics only cases I know very well - randomly):

1. Ashoke Sen (String Theorist, India-based)
Chose to stay in India and was recognized relatively early (Infosys Prize, Fundamental Physics Prize).
Mention here just contrast to others who moved abroad and weren’t celebrated until recently.

2. Atish Dabholkar (Theoretical physicist, ICTP Director)
A US citizen, now more actively engaged with Indian science policy and outreach.
Was once barely visible in Indian institutional discourse; now he's part of high-level collaborations with Indian institutes.

3. Subir Sachdev (Harvard, condensed matter physics)
World-renowned for AdS/CFT in strongly correlated systems.
Barely mentioned in Indian science media until the last 10 years.
Now regularly invited to conferences in India, and featured in lectures and outreach.

4. Shivaji Sondhi (Princeton, condensed matter theorist)
Again, someone who used to fly under the radar in Indian circles.
Now engaged with Indian institutions, giving talks and advising on science education and policy.

5. Rajesh Gopakumar (ex-Harvard, returned to India)
Earlier, returning scientists faced ambivalence or bureaucratic hurdles.
Now, he leads ICTS-TIFR — a shining example of “brain gain” backed by new initiatives.

6. Sandip Trivedi (String theorist, Director of TIFR)
US-trained and now among the most influential theoretical physicists in India.
Awarded Padma Shri in 2015 — during Modi’s tenure — signaling broader national acknowledgment.

So yes, things have changed. Earlier, there was often suspicion or indifference toward Indian-origin scientists who had "gone abroad" or taken foreign citizenship. That mindset is slowly giving way to one of engagement, respect, and collaboration — something I hope continues and deepens.

Warm regards,
Amber G.

___
Most of the people in India (and not too many even in BRF) know/knew about Manjul Bhargava or Akshay Venkatesh (Only too field medalists from India (Indian-decent) till Modi honored them)..
--
nJust a few Changes under Modi Govt & Broader Trends:

GIAN (Global Initiative of Academic Networks): Brought foreign-based Indian-origin scientists to teach in Indian institutions.

VAJRA Scheme: Invites NRIs/PIOs for research in India with government support.

Yuva Vigyani Programmes: Encourage visits and mentoring by diaspora scientists.

High-level diaspora honors: More Padma awards now go to overseas Indians in science.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11464
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Physics Discussion Thread

Post by Amber G. »

Deeply saddened by the passing of Professor Ramamurti Rajaraman (1939–2025). As a fellow Indian-American physicist, I’ve long admired his clarity of thought, his pioneering work on solitons and non-perturbative quantum field theory, and his principled stance on nuclear disarmament. His journey—from reading science in his father’s books as a young boy in Delhi, to doing his PhD under Hans Bethe at Cornell, to mentoring generations of physicists in India—was extraordinary.

Professor Rajaraman’s contributions to physics were both deep and wide-ranging—spanning solitons, instantons, gauge anomalies, the quantum Hall effect, and nuclear matter. His early insight that conventional calculations of nuclear matter energy wouldn't converge led to density-expansion methods that Bethe later developed into a broader theory. His 1975 review on non-perturbative methods became foundational reading, and his book on solitons inspired countless theoretical physicists.

Just as profound was his role as an educator. He taught physics—especially quantum theory—for over five decades, across top Indian institutions and in summer/winter schools, always making difficult concepts graspable. Many of us owe our first clear understanding of subtle topics to his writing or lectures. He believed in science not just as a career but as a path to nation-building and humanity-building. His humility, clarity, and intellectual integrity were as inspiring as his scientific insight.

Beyond the realm of pure physics, Professor Rajaraman dedicated his formidable intellect to public policy—particularly global nuclear disarmament, India’s civilian and military nuclear programs, and higher education. He had long opposed the development of nuclear weapons, even before Pokhran-I in 1974. After the 1998 nuclear tests, he became an unwavering advocate for restraint, transparency, and strategic stability. He argued that India’s doctrine of minimum deterrence required only a modest arsenal, and consistently urged for a cap.

He worked on crucial issues like nuclear accidents, civil defense, early warning systems, and confidence-building with regional counterparts. As a founding member of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, and a participant in numerous Track II dialogues, he brought scholarly rigor and principled advocacy to international discussions. He contributed to debates around the U.S.–India nuclear deal and emphasized the responsibility of scientists to engage the public, particularly on the misunderstood risks and benefits of nuclear energy.

His contributions were recognized with many honors: the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize (1983), the Leo Szilard Lectureship Award from the APS (2014), the Satyendranath Bose Medal (1995), and others. He was a Fellow of both the Indian National Science Academy and the Indian Academy of Sciences, and held leadership roles in IPFM, Pugwash, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and the APLN.

He’ll be remembered not only for what he taught us about physics and policy, but for how to be a scientist with conscience, clarity, and compassion. His wisdom and steady voice will be deeply missed.

Heartfelt condolences to his wife, Professor Indira Jayaraman; his son, Professor Bittu Kaveri Rajaraman; and his brother, Professor R. Shankar of Yale University.

---
Added later (saw in mainstream media) : Prof R Rajaraman obit: Celebrated physicist and tireless voice for nuclear disarmament
Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 938
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Physics Discussion Thread

Post by Haridas »

^^ sraddhanjli to Prof. Rajaraman.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11464
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Physics Discussion Thread

Post by Amber G. »

A_Gupta wrote: 08 Jul 2025 20:28
Amber G. wrote: 07 Jul 2025 23:09 Friendly Request:

Let’s PLEASE keep this thread focused on the core issue!

Friendly Request:

Maybe you will explain on a suitable thread why the dual citizenship issue, which you brought up, has anything to do with physics. Or even your post just above.

Delete them, and I will delete mine.
Just to clarify — the request to stay on topic was a general guideline, not directed at you specifically. As for my post, it remains since it is related to physics — about a Nobel physicist and the broader implications for the scientific community ( NY Times story linked ).
Please do look at detail reply I gave to your other post.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11464
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Physics Discussion Thread

Post by Amber G. »

Decided to reply -
...These fears of "stripping citizenship" (maybe some are afraid that their OCIs would get cancelled) are highly misplaced.

Equating what Dutch had done to their citizens or (of all the countries what Pakistan had done to their citizens) with India or the US (here I am reading between the lines and connecting the poster @Amber G.'s complaint about his friend who never took US citizenship) is beyond the pale
just to clarify, the original post (and the NYT article it linked to) was squarely about Andre Geim, a Nobel-winning physicist, and the rather bizarre bureaucratic situation he’s facing with the Netherlands. It wasn’t any general fears about citizenship — the parallels were made thoughtfully, not sensationally.

It’s a bit strange, honestly, to conflate this with unrelated issues. This wasn’t some vague complaint — the post highlighted how even a globally respected scientist isn’t exempt from rigid rules rooted in laws that haven't evolved (the Dutch law in question dates back to 1872!). And yes, most of the physics world sees this as odd and excessive — not because citizenship rules don’t exist, but because how they're applied matters.

Mentioning Pakistan and Abdus Salam was a valid historical analogy — another case where inflexible national policy ended up alienating a world-class scientist. Not saying the situations are identical, but the comparison is about principle, not politics.

Also — equating this to Amber G.’s mention of a friend who chose not to take US citizenship is, well... to borrow your own words, that’s what’s “beyond the pale.” No one’s suggesting that India is or was anti-intellectual — quite the opposite was noted, in fact. But these are important discussions, and thoughtful comparisons shouldn’t be dismissed just you feel like doing that.

Let’s keep the focus on what the post actually said, not what it didn’t.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11464
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Physics Discussion Thread

Post by Amber G. »

xpost from Math dhaga

Historic Breakthrough in Mathematics: Geometric Langlands Conjecture Proven

One of the most important breakthroughs in modern mathematics has just been achieved — and it’s quietly making waves. The long-elusive geometric Langlands conjecture, a central pillar of the so-called Langlands programme (often dubbed the "grand unified theory of mathematics"), has finally been proven and published. This proof — nearly 1,000 pages long and years in the making — was developed by a team led by Dennis Gaitsgory and Sam Raskin, and it's already drawing major attention in the math world and beyond.

As a physicist, what makes this especially fascinating is the unexpected bridge to quantum field theory. The same deep symmetry (S-duality) that shows up in the equations of electromagnetism and gauge theory also appears in the Langlands correspondence. Edward Witten and others have shown that what once seemed like abstract, esoteric math may actually reflect hidden structures in the fabric of physical law. In other words, this is not just beautiful mathematics — it might be a shadow of deeper symmetries in nature itself.

If there's interest — and people want to dive deeper or understand what this really means — let me know.
-Amber G.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11464
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Physics Discussion Thread

Post by Amber G. »

The Indian team has made the country proud yet again by winning 3 Gold and 2 Silver medals at the just concluded 55th International Physics Olympiad 2025 held in Paris, France. Congratulations to team.

Kanishk Jain (GOLD) Pune, Maharashtra;
Snehil Jha (GOLD) Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh
Riddhesh Anant Bedale (GOLD) Indore, Madhya Pradesh
Aagam Jignesh Shah (SILVER) Surat, Gujarat
Rajit Gupta (SILVER) Kota, Rajasthan

Image
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11464
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Physics Discussion Thread

Post by Amber G. »

High-purity quantum optomechanics at room temperature

(They basically took a nanoparticle — think "a dust speck doing yoga" — and cooled its wiggles to near absolute stillness, at room temp! No liquid helium, no fancy fridge. Just lasers, light tricks, and a near-perfect vacuum. Why care? Because if you can quiet motion that much, you can hear whispers from the universe: gravity nudges, quantum signals, maybe even weird new physics. And all this? Done on a bench-top. )

This work echoes foundational ideas from the 1970s quantum optics era led by EGC Sudarshan, CL Mehta, Glauber (who one Nobel - but it was deserved by Sudarshan etc), Wolf, and others. Back then, the focus was on understanding quantum states of light (like coherent, squeezed, and thermal states) and developing tools like quasi-probability distributions (e.g., the P-representation from Sudarshan).
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11464
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Physics Discussion Thread

Post by Amber G. »

From phys.org:
Researchers at Jefferson Lab’s Hall A Tritium Collaboration performed a landmark experiment using deep inelastic electron scattering on mirror nuclei—tritium (^3H) and helium-3 (^3He). These nuclei are mirror images in terms of protons and neutrons: tritium has two neutrons and one proton, whereas helium-3 has two protons and one neutron. This setup provides a powerful way to probe the internal differences between protons and neutrons

experiment offers most precise measurement of nucleon structure yet

(-Most precise look yet at how nucleon structures change in a nucleus—
-Data can be very importantfor nuclear physics, offering a critical benchmark for theory and future research
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11464
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Physics Discussion Thread

Post by Amber G. »

- I have posted several posts about Gravitational waves - Important news for those who are interested in Physics:

One of Stephen Hawking’s scientifically most influential works was confirmed last week by a strong gravitational wave signal.

The signal was detected in January this year by the LIGO/Virgo/Karga collaboration that combines 4 gravitational wave interferometers in the USA, Italy, and Japan. The analysis revealed that the event was a merger of two black holes of roughly 30 solar masses each, and also that of the final black hole.

Hawking’s prediction (known as the “black hole area theorem”) was that since the surface area of black holes (which is proportional to the square of the mass) determines their entropy, the total surface area can only increase in a merger. The new observation confirms this beautifully.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13980
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Physics Discussion Thread

Post by A_Gupta »

AI helps with this:

Measuring the surface area: The mass and spin of a black hole determine its event horizon area. By analyzing gravitational wave signals, scientists can independently measure the properties of the two initial black holes and the single, larger black hole they form.

Confirming the area increase: Multiple LIGO detections have shown that the final black hole's surface area was demonstrably larger than the sum of the initial black holes' areas.

For example, a clear gravitational wave signal detected on January 14, 2025 (GW250114), showed the initial black holes with a combined event horizon area of 240,000 km² merging into a single black hole with an area of 400,000 km².
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11464
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Physics Discussion Thread

Post by Amber G. »

Sharing from MIT News:
LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA celebrate the anniversary of the first detection of gravitational waves and announce verification of Stephen Hawking’s black hole area theorem.

(About 70+ posts about LIGO and Gravitational waves by me with news and physics understanding in BRF - Nice article sharing because it may require subscription)

Ten years later, LIGO is a black-hole hunting machine
>>>
The following article is adapted from a press release issued by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) Laboratory. LIGO is funded by the National Science Foundation and operated by Caltech and MIT, which conceived and built the project.

On Sept. 14, 2015, a signal arrived on Earth, carrying information about a pair of remote black holes that had spiraled together and merged. The signal had traveled about 1.3 billion years to reach us at the speed of light — but it was not made of light. It was a different kind of signal: a quivering of space-time called gravitational waves first predicted by Albert Einstein 100 years prior. On that day 10 years ago, the twin detectors of the U.S. National Science Foundation Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (NSF LIGO) made the first-ever direct detection of gravitational waves, whispers in the cosmos that had gone unheard until that moment.

The historic discovery meant that researchers could now sense the universe through three different means. Light waves, such as X-rays, optical, radio, and other wavelengths of light, as well as high-energy particles called cosmic rays and neutrinos, had been captured before, but this was the first time anyone had witnessed a cosmic event through the gravitational warping of space-time. For this achievement, first dreamed up more than 40 years prior, three of the team’s founders won the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics: MIT’s Rainer Weiss, professor emeritus of physics (who recently passed away at age 92); Caltech’s Barry Barish, the Ronald and Maxine Linde Professor of Physics, Emeritus; and Caltech’s Kip Thorne, the Richard P. Feynman Professor of Theoretical Physics, Emeritus.

Today, LIGO, which consists of detectors in both Hanford, Washington, and Livingston, Louisiana, routinely observes roughly one black hole merger every three days. LIGO now operates in coordination with two international partners, the Virgo gravitational-wave detector in Italy and KAGRA in Japan. Together, the gravitational-wave-hunting network, known as the LVK (LIGO, Virgo, KAGRA), has captured a total of about 300 black hole mergers, some of which are confirmed while others await further analysis. During the network’s current science run, the fourth since the first run in 2015, the LVK has discovered more than 200 candidate black hole mergers, more than double the number caught in the first three runs.

The dramatic rise in the number of LVK discoveries over the past decade is owed to several improvements to their detectors — some of which involve cutting-edge quantum precision engineering. The LVK detectors remain by far the most precise rulers for making measurements ever created by humans. The space-time distortions induced by gravitational waves are incredibly miniscule. For instance, LIGO detects changes in space-time smaller than 1/10,000 the width of a proton. That’s 1/700 trillionth the width of a human hair.

“Rai Weiss proposed the concept of LIGO in 1972, and I thought, ‘This doesn’t have much chance at all of working,’” recalls Thorne, an expert on the theory of black holes. “It took me three years of thinking about it on and off and discussing ideas with Rai and Vladimir Braginsky [a Russian physicist], to be convinced this had a significant possibility of success. The technical difficulty of reducing the unwanted noise that interferes with the desired signal was enormous. We had to invent a whole new technology. NSF was just superb at shepherding this project through technical reviews and hurdles.”

Nergis Mavalvala, the Curtis and Kathleen Marble Professor of Astrophysics at MIT and dean of the MIT School of Science, says that the challenges the team overcame to make the first discovery are still very much at play. “From the exquisite precision of the LIGO detectors to the astrophysical theories of gravitational-wave sources, to the complex data analyses, all these hurdles had to be overcome, and we continue to improve in all of these areas,” Mavalvala says. “As the detectors get better, we hunger for farther, fainter sources. LIGO continues to be a technological marvel.”

The clearest signal yet

LIGO’s improved sensitivity is exemplified in a recent discovery of a black hole merger referred to as GW250114. (The numbers denote the date the gravitational-wave signal arrived at Earth: January 14, 2025.) The event was not that different from LIGO’s first-ever detection (called GW150914) — both involve colliding black holes about 1.3 billion light-years away with masses between 30 to 40 times that of our sun. But thanks to 10 years of technological advances reducing instrumental noise, the GW250114 signal is dramatically clearer.

“We can hear it loud and clear, and that lets us test the fundamental laws of physics,” says LIGO team member Katerina Chatziioannou, Caltech assistant professor of physics and William H. Hurt Scholar, and one of the authors of a new study on GW250114 published in the Physical Review Letters.

By analyzing the frequencies of gravitational waves emitted by the merger, the LVK team provided the best observational evidence captured to date for what is known as the black hole area theorem, an idea put forth by Stephen Hawking in 1971 that says the total surface areas of black holes cannot decrease. When black holes merge, their masses combine, increasing the surface area. But they also lose energy in the form of gravitational waves. Additionally, the merger can cause the combined black hole to increase its spin, which leads to it having a smaller area. The black hole area theorem states that despite these competing factors, the total surface area must grow in size.

Later, Hawking and physicist Jacob Bekenstein concluded that a black hole’s area is proportional to its entropy, or degree of disorder. The findings paved the way for later groundbreaking work in the field of quantum gravity, which attempts to unite two pillars of modern physics: general relativity and quantum physics.

In essence, the LIGO detection allowed the team to “hear” two black holes growing as they merged into one, verifying Hawking’s theorem. (Virgo and KAGRA were offline during this particular observation.) The initial black holes had a total surface area of 240,000 square kilometers (roughly the size of Oregon), while the final area was about 400,000 square kilometers (roughly the size of California) — a clear increase. This is the second test of the black hole area theorem; an initial test was performed in 2021 using data from the first GW150914 signal, but because that data were not as clean, the results had a confidence level of 95 percent compared to 99.999 percent for the new data.

Thorne recalls Hawking phoning him to ask whether LIGO might be able to test his theorem immediately after he learned of the 2015 gravitational-wave detection. Hawking died in 2018 and sadly did not live to see his theory observationally verified. “If Hawking were alive, he would have reveled in seeing the area of the merged black holes increase,” Thorne says.

The trickiest part of this type of analysis had to do with determining the final surface area of the merged black hole. The surface areas of pre-merger black holes can be more readily gleaned as the pair spiral together, roiling space-time and producing gravitational waves. But after the black holes coalesce, the signal is not as clear-cut. During this so-called ringdown phase, the final black hole vibrates like a struck bell.

In the new study, the researchers precisely measured the details of the ringdown phase, which allowed them to calculate the mass and spin of the black hole and, subsequently, determine its surface area. More specifically, they were able, for the first time, to confidently pick out two distinct gravitational-wave modes in the ringdown phase. The modes are like characteristic sounds a bell would make when struck; they have somewhat similar frequencies but die out at different rates, which makes them hard to identify. The improved data for GW250114 meant that the team could extract the modes, demonstrating that the black hole’s ringdown occurred exactly as predicted by math models based on the Teukolsky formalism — devised in 1972 by Saul Teukolsky, now a professor at Caltech and Cornell University.

Another study from the LVK, submitted to Physical Review Letters today, places limits on a predicted third, higher-pitched tone in the GW250114 signal, and performs some of the most stringent tests yet of general relativity’s accuracy in describing merging black holes.

“A decade of improvements allowed us to make this exquisite measurement,” Chatziioannou says. “It took both of our detectors, in Washington and Louisiana, to do this. I don’t know what will happen in 10 more years, but in the first 10 years, we have made tremendous improvements to LIGO’s sensitivity. This not only means we are accelerating the rate at which we discover new black holes, but we are also capturing detailed data that expand the scope of what we know about the fundamental properties of black holes.”

Jenne Driggers, detection lead senior scientist at LIGO Hanford, adds, “It takes a global village to achieve our scientific goals. From our exquisite instruments, to calibrating the data very precisely, vetting and providing assurances about the fidelity of the data quality, searching the data for astrophysical signals, and packaging all that into something that telescopes can read and act upon quickly, there are a lot of specialized tasks that come together to make LIGO the great success that it is.”

Pushing the limits

LIGO and Virgo have also unveiled neutron stars over the past decade. Like black holes, neutron stars form from the explosive deaths of massive stars, but they weigh less and glow with light. Of note, in August 2017, LIGO and Virgo witnessed an epic collision between a pair of neutron stars — a kilonova — that sent gold and other heavy elements flying into space and drew the gaze of dozens of telescopes around the world, which captured light ranging from high-energy gamma rays to low-energy radio waves. The “multi-messenger” astronomy event marked the first time that both light and gravitational waves had been captured in a single cosmic event. Today, the LVK continues to alert the astronomical community to potential neutron star collisions, who then use telescopes to search the skies for signs of kilonovae.

“The LVK has made big strides in recent years to make sure we’re getting high-quality data and alerts out to the public in under a minute, so that astronomers can look for multi-messenger signatures from our gravitational-wave candidates,” Driggers says.

“The global LVK network is essential to gravitational-wave astronomy,” says Gianluca Gemme, Virgo spokesperson and director of research at the National Institute of Nuclear Physics in Italy. “With three or more detectors operating in unison, we can pinpoint cosmic events with greater accuracy, extract richer astrophysical information, and enable rapid alerts for multi-messenger follow-up. Virgo is proud to contribute to this worldwide scientific endeavor.”

Other LVK scientific discoveries include the first detection of collisions between one neutron star and one black hole; asymmetrical mergers, in which one black hole is significantly more massive than its partner black hole; the discovery of the lightest black holes known, challenging the idea that there is a “mass gap” between neutron stars and black holes; and the most massive black hole merger seen yet with a merged mass of 225 solar masses. For reference, the previous record holder for the most massive merger had a combined mass of 140 solar masses.

Even in the decades before LIGO began taking data, scientists were building foundations that made the field of gravitational-wave science possible. Breakthroughs in computer simulations of black hole mergers, for example, allow the team to extract and analyze the feeble gravitational-wave signals generated across the universe.

LIGO’s technological achievements, beginning as far back as the 1980s, include several far-reaching innovations, such as a new way to stabilize lasers using the so-called Pound–Drever–Hall technique. Invented in 1983 and named for contributing physicists Robert Vivian Pound, the late Ronald Drever of Caltech (a founder of LIGO), and John Lewis Hall, this technique is widely used today in other fields, such as the development of atomic clocks and quantum computers. Other innovations include cutting-edge mirror coatings that almost perfectly reflect laser light; “quantum squeezing” tools that enable LIGO to surpass sensitivity limits imposed by quantum physics; and new artificial intelligence methods that could further hush certain types of unwanted noise.

“What we are ultimately doing inside LIGO is protecting quantum information and making sure it doesn’t get destroyed by external factors,” Mavalvala says. “The techniques we are developing are pillars of quantum engineering and have applications across a broad range of devices, such as quantum computers and quantum sensors.”

In the coming years, the scientists and engineers of LVK hope to further fine-tune their machines, expanding their reach deeper and deeper into space. They also plan to use the knowledge they have gained to build another gravitational-wave detector, LIGO India. Having a third LIGO observatory would greatly improve the precision with which the LVK network can localize gravitational-wave sources.

Looking farther into the future, the team is working on a concept for an even larger detector, called Cosmic Explorer, which would have arms 40 kilometers long. (The twin LIGO observatories have 4-kilometer arms.) A European project, called Einstein Telescope, also has plans to build one or two huge underground interferometers with arms more than 10 kilometers long. Observatories on this scale would allow scientists to hear the earliest black hole mergers in the universe.

“Just 10 short years ago, LIGO opened our eyes for the first time to gravitational waves and changed the way humanity sees the cosmos,” says Aamir Ali, a program director in the NSF Division of Physics, which has supported LIGO since its inception. “There’s a whole universe to explore through this completely new lens and these latest discoveries show LIGO is just getting started.”

The LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collaboration

LIGO is funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation and operated by Caltech and MIT, which together conceived and built the project. Financial support for the Advanced LIGO project was led by NSF with Germany (Max Planck Society), the United Kingdom (Science and Technology Facilities Council), and Australia (Australian Research Council) making significant commitments and contributions to the project. More than 1,600 scientists from around the world participate in the effort through the LIGO Scientific Collaboration, which includes the GEO Collaboration. Additional partners are listed at my.ligo.org/census.php.

The Virgo Collaboration is currently composed of approximately 1,000 members from 175 institutions in 20 different (mainly European) countries. The European Gravitational Observatory (EGO) hosts the Virgo detector near Pisa, Italy, and is funded by the French National Center for Scientific Research, the National Institute of Nuclear Physics in Italy, the National Institute of Subatomic Physics in the Netherlands, The Research Foundation – Flanders, and the Belgian Fund for Scientific Research. A list of the Virgo Collaboration groups can be found on the project website.

KAGRA is the laser interferometer with 3-kilometer arm length in Kamioka, Gifu, Japan. The host institute is the Institute for Cosmic Ray Research of the University of Tokyo, and the project is co-hosted by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan and the High Energy Accelerator Research Organization. The KAGRA collaboration is composed of more than 400 members from 128 institutes in 17 countries/regions. KAGRA’s information for general audiences is at the website gwcenter.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/. Resources for researchers are accessible at gwwiki.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/JGWwiki/KAGRA.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11464
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Physics Discussion Thread

Post by Amber G. »

Few comments about India contributions:

- Indian-origin physicists: Sukanta Bose, Sanjeev Dhurandhar, Bala Iyer, C.S. Unnikrishnan — some key roles in theory, data analysis, and LIGO-India leadership.

LIGO-India: Planned gravitational-wave detector; led by IUCAA, RRCAT, IPR; part of global LIGO–Virgo–KAGRA network.

Government support: Union Cabinet approved; funded by DAE & DST; ~₹1,200 crore project; land allocated; Indian industry involved in high-tech components.
Post Reply