This is the first entry of my “Top arXiv papers of the week” column. As explained in my welcome post, I plan to update this column at the end of each week with a brief description of the 5 papers which I found most interesting among all those posted on the arXiv during the week. As a full disclaimer, these papers aren’t necessarily the best ones, nor the most correct ones, nor the most interesting ones in an absolute sense. In fact, the choice of top 5 papers probably says much more about my research interests than anything else. Also, I mostly check hep-ph, gr-qc, and astro-ph (in this order, a remnant of my past as a particle physicist). Still, I hope these brief summaries will be interesting and useful to other researcher whose interests are related to mine.
Without further ado, here are the 5 papers I found most interesting from Week 1 of 2020 (papers posted on December 30, January 1, and January 3).
#1 2001.00041: Constraining fundamental physics with the Event Horizon Telescope by Markus Rummel and Cliff Burgess
This is a very interesting paper which comes with a public code (kudos!), looking at the possibility of testing deviations from GR using the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) image of M87*. The paper looks mostly at theories/frameworks which deviate from GR near the black hole (BH) event horizon or would-be horizon scale (several such models are motivated from proposed solutions to the BH information paradox which introduce new physics at the gravitational radius scale rather than at the Planck scale, think e.g. of firewalls and fuzzballs), so that the our current understanding of the astrophysics of accretion disks is not altered.
At leading order these types of theories result in modifications to the transmission and reflection coefficients of modes approaching the horizon. The authors find that such coefficients can be constrained to around 10%, which is actually not bad! The main “limitation” is that the method proposed by the authors only works if one can work within an effective field theory (EFT) approach for the specific class of deviations from GR. This is ok if you have a Lagrangian formulation for your beyond-GR framework (just integrate out the UV modes), but not all of the scenarios the authors have in mind have a precise Lagrangian formulation. Also, the method only works for scenarios which predict near-horizon deviations, so it’s not really suited to test “modified gravity” in the sense one usually thinks of (e.g. deviations from GR to explain cosmic acceleration). Still, a very interesting paper and a very worthwhile read!
#2 1912.12629: Testing the equivalence principle via the shadow of black holes by Chunlong Li et al.
Ok, you’ve probably guessed that in this period of my life I am very interested in BH shadows! Anyway, another very interesting paper where the authors (among which there is Yi-Fu Cai, usually a guarantee of a paper worthwhile reading) propose using BH shadows to test violations of the equivalence principle (EP). The authors consider a specific scenario where photons are acted upon by an additional background vector field, which essentially results in the BH shadow size (viewed edge-on) depending on which wavelength band one observes it in. Therefore, future multi-band observations could test possible violations of the EP using the methodology proposed by the authors.
While the results of the paper do not depend on the particular specific form of the vector field, the paper itself does not consider a completely generic scenario for violations of the EP. In this sense, the results are somewhat model-dependent, and do not cover all possible scenarios of EP violation (which perhaps is what I initially expected from the title). Nonetheless, the idea is extremely interesting and definitely worth considering further in light of expected improvements in VLBI technology and data analysis, and the paper definitely made for a very interesting reading.
#3 2001.00043: Strengthening the TCC Bound on Inflationary Cosmology by Robert Brandenberger and Edward Wilson-Ewing
If it hadn’t been for Brandenberger among the authors, I probably would have thought “Oh oh, another trans-Planckian censorship paper!”. For those of you unfamiliar with the trans-Planckian censorship conjecture (TCC), the statement is that in a consistent theory of quantum gravity no modes whose wavelength is smaller than the Planck scale can exit the Hubble horizon at any point. One of the main implications of the TCC is that the tensor-to-scalar ratio r should be vanishingly small, of order 10^-30 or less (this is essentially an upper limit on the energy scale of inflation). To be honest, of all the swampland conjectures (such as the distance, de Sitter, and refined swampland conjectures), the TCC is probably the best-motivated one although it remains, as the name says, a conjecture.
Anyway, today’s paper basically shows that if prior to inflation the Universe was dominated by radiation, then the aforementioned upper limit gets substantially tighter. While prima facie a bad thing (no chance of detecting primordial gravitational waves), this does come with a silver lining in that the inflationary scale can be as low as 10 TeV and hence potentially testable in current and future accelerator experiments. I am not an expert on pre-inflationary scenarios so I can’t corroborate the authors’ statement that “"it is rather likely that there was a pre-inflationary phase of radiation-domination” (although I would be very surprised if anything certain can be said about what happened before inflation), but if this is correct then one could perhaps hope to probe the physics of inflation (or at least some aspects of it) already at the LHC?
#4 1912.12926: Finite action revisited by John Barrow
The very interesting idea that the total action of the Universe (the sum of the gravitational, matter, and boundary terms actions) is finite was put forward by John Barrow himself together with Frank Tipler several years ago. Interestingly, it looks like avoiding singularities in curvature invariants comes at the price of singularities in the action and viceversa, so one has to accept singularities in one of the two. The question then becomes what quantity is more fundamental to the point that we would want to avoid singularities there? Barrow and Tipler argued that the action is the most fundamental quantity for physical theories and therefore one better make sure it is always finite. In this week’s paper, Barrow revisits the idea focusing on what it implies for various well-motivated cosmological models. The finite action idea has a variety of important consequences for several specific models, and these are well summarized by bullet-points in the conclusions.
Interestingly, several much talked about scenarios would be ruled out, for instance the Universe cannot display a bounce or indefinite cyclic behaviour (both in the past and in the future), ekpyrotic scenarios would also appear to be ruled out, as are loop quantum gravity scenarios experiencing a bounce and indefinite past or future evolution. Modified gravity models with higher-order Lagrangian terms are also highly constrained. I am not expert enough to judge whether the finite action proposal is well-motivated (but knowing Barrow I am going to take an educated guess and say that it is very well motivated). If it turns out to be, then the finite action idea is definitely worth exploring much more, especially since it has very interesting implications for dark energy (which, you guessed it, cannot be a cosmological constant!) and the curvature of the Universe, and therefore for near-future observations.
#5: 1912.12386: Radiative neutrino mass model from a mass dimension-11 \Delta L=2 effective operator by John Gargalionis, Iulia Popa-Mateiu, and Ray Volkas
There are (too) many neutrino mass papers on hep-ph every day, but I think this one sticks out among the crowd. The neutrino mass models the authors look at are so-called radiative models, where the neutrino mass is generated at loop level. There is a seminal paper by Babu and Leung where effective neutrino mass operators were classified. However, the list of Babu and Leung stopped at dimension-11 operators, the rationale being that higher-order operators are so suppressed (e.g. by 1/16*pi^2 loop factors and products of small couplings) that in order for these operators to generate neutrino masses at a level of at least 0.06 eV as indicated by oscillation experiments, the new particles which would effectively UV-complete these operators would already have had to be detected. Dimension-11 operators were thought to lie in a sweet spot, with new physics appearing at the TeV scale.
Today’s paper is calculational tour-de-force which provides an explicit counterexample to such a statement. The authors study an UV completion of operator 47 and show that they can push the scale of new physics up to 10^7 TeV. The reason is that the suppression of the neutrino mass scale in the scenario they consider goes like v^2/L, with L the scale of new physics and v the Higgs VEV, instead of (v/L)^2 as one would instead expect. The results of this paper therefore lead to the conjecture that neutrino mass operators of dimension greater than 11 should not be overlooked. It would perhaps be interesting to see a proof of this conjecture, in the form of an explicit UV-completion of a dimension-13 operator with viable phenomenology.