Quantcast
Welcome Guest  —  No members and 119 guests online
WELCOME TO THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN COMMUNITY
Please join the conversation!

Feel free to explore the site and create an account (click on "Log In" on the upper right hand side).

Uncover cool stories and news and participate in lively discussion that will force you to think.

Be inspired, launch a blog, and stake your place in the realm of the new, new media.
Sciam Observations
How a fake word from The Simpsons ended up in a perfectly cromulent string theory paper
The Simpsons Movie debuted this weekend to higher-than-expected sales, bearing testament to the show's enduring popularity. If you needed any convincing that after 18 years on the air The Simpsons has thoroughly penetrated the popular consciousness, consider the following usage of the word "embiggen," one of the many fine references with which one Simpsons fan can detect another.

The term comes from the 1996 episode Lisa the Iconoclast, in which we learn that a young Jebediah Springfield is supposed to have spoken it after wrestling a bison, or "land cow."



Jebediah: [on film] A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.
Edna: Embiggens? I never heard that word before I moved to Springfield
Ms. Hoover: I don't know why. It's a perfectly cromulent word.


Here is the word in a rather different context:

While in both cases for P anti-D3-branes the probe approximation is clearly not good, in the set up of this paper we could argue that there is a competing effect which can overcome the desire of the anti-D3s to embiggen, namely their attraction towards the wrapped D5s. Hence, also on the gravity side, the non-supersymmetric states would naively be meta-stable.


That's string theory-ese, for the uninitiated.



This passage comes from a paper by Stanford University physicist Shamit Kachru and three colleagues, entitled (duh) Gauge/gravity duality and meta-stable dynamical supersymmetry breaking. [Hat tip to Kottke.org by way of the illustrious Chris Mims.]

String theory is physicists' best guess at how to unify quantum mechanics with gravity, which ought to be swell for understanding what happens inside black holes and before the big bang, as well as why nature has the different forces it does. Unfortunately, researchers have had a hard time putting it to the test because it is consistent with many different possible universes, of which more later.

I emailed Kachru, one of the most prominent younger researchers working on string theory, to get the back-story. Here's what he told me, in Q-and-A form. (Hint: it only has to do with the biggest development in string theory in the last 10 years.)

SA: How did you come across the word embiggen?

SK: I first came across this word in "The Simpsons," a source of knowledge for all serious theoretical physicists. It was used in the sentence "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man." So by context I assume it means "to enlarge or expand in size."

The passage deals with something called a D-brane. What is that, exactly, and why is it important?

You can imagine two types of strings, closed loops and "open strings" (like jump ropes, with two ends). The open strings can only end on objects called D-branes, which are objects in the theory that can have any spatial dimension from 0 (a point) to 9 (filling all 10 spacetime dimensions). So e.g. a 2-brane is like a sheet of paper, on which open strings are allowed to end.

In many string theories, although gravity arises "for free," the only way to get gauge interactions [i.e., other forces--ed.] analogous to electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces, is by having D-branes present in the vacuum [meaning spacetime].

A 3-brane could fill all of our observed 3 spatial dimensions, and if the right gauge interactions arise on it from careful study of the open strings, we could even imagine that we live on such a D3 brane.

Later, in my research (starting in [this 2001 paper]), I encountered a phenomenon where D-branes in certain string backgrounds [or shapes of spacetime] like to expand into "larger" D-branes (which is known in general as the Myers effect). A rough analogue is the behavior of an atom in an electric field: although the atom is electrically neutral, the field polarizes the constituent electrons and protons, and pulls the atom apart a little bit, making it bigger. (I.e. there is [what is called] a dipole moment <ins>[or an overall separation of positive and negative charge]</ins>;).

Similarly, D-branes in string theory can carry dipoles of higher D-brane charges. The relevant case for us was that a D3 brane can carry D5 dipole charge; in the right circumstances, background fields (analogous to the electric field above) then cause it to "expand" into a D5 brane wrapping some two-dimensional curve in the geometry.

You can see that in this situation, it is ideal to use the phrase "...the
anti-D3 brane embiggens into a D5 brane wrapping..." and that is roughly the context in which we used the phrase.

Why is it important if an anti-D3 brane embiggens into a D5 brane?

In the circumstance we were studying, the presence of the anti-D3
brane breaks supersymmetry, which is a symmetry of the 10d string theory (but is broken in our world for sure [sort of like the way the Earth "breaks" the spatial symmetry of empty space, in which there is no "up" or "down." If supersymmetry (SUSY) was unbroken, particle accelerators would have found a bunch of particles that they haven't--(still) ed]).

The embiggening into a D5 brane is an attempt by the object to relax the supersymmetry breaking and get back to a supersymmetric (zero energy) vacuum. However, in the circumstance we studied, it cannot "embiggen" enough to decay and restore supersymmetry.

So is this part of an attempt to match up string theory with the real world?

The anti-D3 brane SUSY breaking actually played an important role in the KKLT paper of 2003 (hep-th/0301240) [named for the initials of Kachru and three co-authors], which was one of the first constructions of de Sitter space [or an accelerating universe] in string theory and was in many ways rather influential.

In that sense, these "embiggened" states have played an important role in attempts to model one of the qualitatively new phenomena (accelerated expansion of the Universe) that was just discovered in the late 1990s.

["Rather influential" is right. Molding string theory to fit any sort of universe that is expanding in an accelerated fashion--such as our own--was long a stumbling block. In achieving their result, KKLT helped realize the concept of a "landscape" of possible universes in string theory (paywall, sorry), the controversy surrounding which became a huge story last year.--ed.]

Have any of your colleagues recognized your use of the word?

When I gave a draft of one of the papers using this word to [fellow Simpsons fan] Joe Polchinski [of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara] and asked him to among other things to comment on the referencing in the paper, he replied "Your referencing looks perfectly cromulent." I didn't remember cromulent and had to look it up myself!

Ok, now for the serious stuff. What's your favorite physics moment from the show?

I think my favorite physics moment in the Simpsons is the episode (I think it was one of the Halloween episodes) where Homer discovers the 3rd dimension" behind a bookcase. He then "falls into the 3rd dimension" and experiences weird laws of physics. Eventually, the 3rd dimension collapses into a black hole and spits him out into an alternate reality.

Do you intend to see the Simpsons Movie?

Definitely! I can tell just from the previews with the Spider Pig that I will really like it.
11 Comments
"String theory is physicists' best guess at how to unify quantum mechanics with gravity."

Oh please. That's simply not true. ST is an UNTESTABLE and UNFALSIFIABLE theory that's equivalent to religion.

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/18638
http://www.thetroublewithphysics.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Problems_and_controversy
This reminds me of a section of a paper in oceanography where someone I know reference a made up dimensionless constant, named after the inventor of ice-9 from Vonnegut (from Li and Garrett 1995):


...The Prandtl number Pr = vr/Kr is the ratio of eddy viscosity to eddy diffusivity. The third dimensionless number is the Hoenikker number, ~ which is defined as Bo Ho Sol, U2., (21) or Ho - agQ/(CvPw) S0/5u2* (22) if the surface heat flux dominates the contribution to the surface buoyancy flux. It is noted that Ho > 0 when the.ocean loses heat (Q < 0) and Ho < 0 when the ocean receives heat (Q > 0). The product Ho Pr represents the ratio of convective forcing to wave forcing through the Stokes drift. We can rewrite Ho as 4 (2S0/-' 1/(2/~) Ho .... (23) K\u,/ L in which L = -u3,/(~Bo) is the Monin-Obukhov length and ~ is the von Kfirmfin constant. The ratio D/L of the mixed layer depth to the Monin-Obukhov length has been used as a bulk stability parameter, indicating the importance of convective instability of the mixed layer when the parameter is large, and negative (Turner 1973 ). This criterion relies on the assumption of a smooth surface and no coherent secondary flows and is not a priori applicable to the upper ocean, which contains breaking waves and Langmuir cells (Thorpe 1985). Taking ~ = ( 1 to 2) x 10-4 K-l as for temperature in the range 10-20 K, Cv = 4.0 x 103 J K-' kg-~, and using the estimates u. = ( 1/950 to 1/650) Uw, 2So = (0.014 to 0.015)Uw, and 1/(2/~) -- O. 12U2~/g for fully developed seas (LG), we find Ho ~ -(7 x 10-4) Q. (24) Uw For a surface heat loss rate Q = -200 W m-2 and a wind speed U~ = 10 m s-', Ho is thus estimated to be 0.014. The spectrum of the Stokes drift gradient So/5 is flat so that Ho is fairly .independent of fetch. If Pr ~ The dimensionless number Ho is named after the distinguished ocean thermodynamicist Dr. Felix Hoenikker (Vonnegut 1963). Dr. Hoenikker, the inventor of ice nine, was modeled on Irving Langmuir, for whom Kurt Vonnegut's brother Bernard worked at the General Electric Laboratories in Schenectady, New York (B. Vonnegut 1994, personal communication ). = 1 is taken for turbulent fluids, then the convective forcing appears to be typically less than 2% of the Stokes drift forcing...
Hi mike,



I think I actually mentioned the difficulty testing string theory in the sentence following the one you quoted. So your point is well taken. It's also a non sequitur. String theory can be untestable and still be physicists' best or leading candidate theory by virtue of popularity. Thanks for playing, though.
In an already difficult to understand text, heavy with jargon, is it really beneficial to use made-up undefined terms?
Theoretical Physicists Develop a test for String Theory:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070124175443.htm
First the theory, then the tests. Nothing unusual about that. The challenge for testing string theory is the scale involved, with the photon being about the smallest probe we currently have. Even back in Brian Greene's 2004 book The Fabric of the Cosmos Greene proposes a test for detecting multiple dimensions in which the gravitation force is seen to increase when distance is sufficiently close. Again, the scale is a challenge.

String theory a religion? Preposterous. No feet will be placed in the fire as the tests begin to return results that don't match the theory. Instead, the theory will be refined. That's science.
At the Large Hadron Collider, there is a possibility o fseeing extra dimensions as well. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7021/full/433010a.html

I don't understand why people always try to equate science with religion when attempting to attack a scientific theory. As educated scientists, we all see this tactic makes little sense and only serves to diminish value of the controversy. There are enough problems with String Theory that merit discussion without the using an argumentative strategy that would only be persuasive between children.
I thought d brane is d thing that fills d skull.

But seriously, if superstrings are the fundamental building blocks of the universe, how do they bend? And if "bending" is a metaphor for what they actually do, why use one that gives such an erroneous impression?
new site for Online TV
http://stafex.net
I really enjoyed the article. It was a good combination of information (with clear references) and humour. Nice job on the research.
maybe he was just testing the referees to see if they were paying attention and read the entire manuscript carefully. or maybe he just thought it was funny. in either case it made its way to publication. i'm sure that use of this imaginary word "embiggen" or any of its forms had no effect on the validity of content. in fact, i have writtten papers with somewhat convincing, although nonsensical constructions that have made it past professors unnoticed and had a good laugh.
 

ADVERTISEMENT