arxiv

One of the big hopes of particle- and astro-physicists over the next few years is to experimentally pin down the nature of dark matter. In a perfect world, we’ll make the dark matter particle at the LHC, observe gamma rays produced when dark matter annihilates in the galaxy, and detect it directly in experiments here on Earth. The world isn’t always perfect, but sometimes it’s even better, so everyone is sitting on the edges of their seats waiting to hear what the experiments tell us.

For the direct-detection strategy here on Earth, we build giant detectors and wait for ambient dark-matter particles to interact with something in the detector. If the dark matter is a weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP), that’s not so hard; the difficult part is distinguishing a purported signal from various backgrounds. To know what the signal should be, of course, we need to know how many dark matter particles are zipping through the laboratory. It should be a good number: roughly speaking, there would be about one weak-scale-sized dark matter particle per coffee-cup-volume in the universe, and in our galaxy these particles will typically be trucking along at around 300 kilometers per second.

Still, you’d like an accurate estimate of how much dark matter there is supposed to be in your detector. That’s what Riccardo Catena and Piero Ullio claim to have provided:

A novel determination of the local dark matter density
Authors: Riccardo Catena, Piero Ullio

Abstract: We present a novel study on the problem of constructing mass models for the Milky Way, concentrating on features regarding the dark matter halo component. We have considered a variegated sample of dynamical observables for the Galaxy, including several results which have appeared recently, and studied a 7- or 8-dimensional parameter space – defining the Galaxy model – by implementing a Bayesian approach to the parameter estimation based on a Markov Chain Monte Carlo method. The main result of this analysis is a novel determination of the local dark matter halo density which, assuming spherical symmetry and either an Einasto or an NFW density profile is found to be around 0.39 GeV cm$^{-3}$ with a 1-$sigma$ error bar of about 7%; more precisely we find a $rho_{DM}(R_0) = 0.385 pm 0.027 rm GeV cm^{-3}$ for the Einasto profile and $rho_{DM}(R_0) = 0.389 pm 0.025 rm GeV cm^{-3}$ for the NFW. This is in contrast to the standard assumption that $rho_{DM}(R_0)$ is about 0.3 GeV cm$^{-3}$ with an uncertainty of a factor of 2 to 3. A very precise determination of the local halo density is very important for interpreting direct dark matter detection experiments. Indeed the results we produced, together with the recent accurate determination of the local circular velocity, should be very useful to considerably narrow astrophysical uncertainties on direct dark matter detection.

So they’re claiming the density is about .39 GeV per cubic centimeter (where one GeV is about the mass of the proton), whereas the standard figure is something closer to .30 GeV per cubic centimeter. More importantly, they claim to trust their estimate to a precision of about 7%, while the usual number is supposed to be uncertain by a factor of 2 or 3.

I’m not expert enough to judge whether they are right, but it would certainly be very impressive to pin down the density to such high precision. They do assume spherical symmetry, however, which I suspect is not a very good assumption. There are ongoing arguments about how lumpy the distribution of galactic dark matter really is, and I can easily imagine that lumpiness can distort the local density by much more than 7%. But work like this is going to be very important in interpreting the results, if (when?) we do directly detect the dark matter.

Black holes are black because you can’t go faster than the speed of light. So what about the speed of sound?

Of course there is no problem in having something go faster than sound, but sound waves themselves are stuck with that speed limit. That fairly elementary fact inspired Bill Unruh years back to propose a clever idea: a black hole that you could make in the laboratory, but using sound rather than light. He called them dumb holes, although I’m not sure people get the right idea when they hear that name.

I used to think that this was an amusing thought experiment, but was believed to be unrealistic to actually attempt. But now Lahav et al. have apparently done it! (Via Swans on Tea and arXiv blog.)

A sonic black hole in a density-inverted Bose-Einstein condensate
Authors: O. Lahav, A. Itah, A. Blumkin, C. Gordon, J. Steinhauer

Abstract: We have created the analogue of a black hole in a Bose-Einstein condensate. In this sonic black hole, sound waves, rather than light waves, cannot escape the event horizon. The black hole is realized via a counterintuitive density inversion, in which an attractive potential repels the atoms. This allows for measured flow speeds which cross and exceed the speed of sound by an order of magnitude. The Landau critical velocity is therefore surpassed. The point where the flow speed equals the speed of sound is the event horizon. The effective gravity is determined from the profiles of the velocity and speed of sound.

The idea is simply that you get a fluid flowing faster than its speed of sound in some region, so that the sound waves cannot escape the “horizon” bounding that region. (The flow speed has to change within the material; taking a balloon full of air and putting it on a supersonic jet doesn’t count.)

But the reason this could some day be very exciting is when quantum mechanics gets into the game. Just like black holes, dumb holes should have “Hawking radiation” — but instead of particles, the holes should emit quantized sound waves (conventionally known as “phonons”). That would be very interesting to observe, although the experimental state of the art isn’t there yet.

To be clear, we wouldn’t be learning much about quantum gravity if we observed Hawking phonons from dumb holes. The underlying physics is still that of atoms (and, in this case, a Bose-Einstein condensate), not that of general relativity. Indeed, one of Unruh’s original motivations was to show that the physics on small scales didn’t affect the prediction of Hawking radiation. So the prediction of Hawking phonons should be rock-solid, no matter how little we know about quantum gravity. Still, it would be very cool.

What is the Secretary of Energy doing submitting papers to the arxiv when he’s supposed to be solving the world’s energy problems? I have enough trouble getting papers written when it’s my actual job.

Atom interferometry tests of local Lorentz invariance in gravity and electrodynamics
Authors: Keng-Yeow Chung, Sheng-wey Chiow, Sven Herrmann, Steven Chu, Holger Mueller

Abstract: We present atom-interferometer tests of the local Lorentz invariance of post-Newtonian gravity. An experiment probing for anomalous vertical gravity on Earth, which has already been performed by us, uses the highest-resolution atomic gravimeter so far. The influence of Lorentz violation in electrodynamics is also taken into account, resulting in combined bounds on Lorentz violation in gravity and electrodynamics. Expressed within the standard model extension or Nordtvedt’s anisotropic universe model, we limit twelve linear combinations of seven coefficients for Lorentz violation at the part per billion level, from which we derive limits on six coefficients (and seven when taking into account additional data from lunar laser ranging). We also discuss the use of horizontal interferometers, including atom-chip or guided-atom devices, which potentially allow the use of longer coherence times in order to achieve higher sensitivity.

We kid the Energy Secretary, but this is a very cool experiment. (I presume this is the interferometer?) Basically, you throw an atom up in the air, and catch it as it comes down. But you actually split the wave function of the atom into two different beams, depending on when it absorbs and emits a pulse of laser light. The beams leave the same place and are collected at the same place, but travel on slightly different paths; you can use interferometry to see whether these different paths have evolved differently.

Which lets you test all kinds of things, from measuring the fine structure constant to looking for new forces to testing Lorentz invariance, as is happening here. But if it helps free us from dependence on foreign oil sources, I’d be surprised.

An arxiv find, via David Hogg (via Facebook, via the internet).

The gravitational force law in the Solar System
Authors: Jo Bovy (NYU), Iain Murray (Toronto), David W. Hogg (NYU, MPIA)

Abstract: If the Solar System is long-lived and non-resonant (that is, if the planets are bound and have evolved independently through many orbital times), and if the system is observed at any non-special time, it is possible to infer the dynamical properties of the Solar System (such as the gravitational force or acceleration law) from a snapshot of the planet positions and velocities at a single moment in time. We consider purely radial acceleration laws of the form a_r= –A [r/r₀]^-α, where r is the distance from the Sun. Using only an instantaneous kinematic snapshot (valid at 2009 April 1.0) for the eight major planets and a Bayesian probabilistic inference technique, we infer 1.989<α<2.052 (95-percent confidence). Our results confirm those of Newton (1687) and contemporaries, who inferred α=2 (with no stated uncertainty) via the comparison of computed and observationally inferred orbit shapes (closed ellipses with the Sun at one focus; Kepler 1609). Generalizations of the methods used here will permit, among other things, inference of Milky-Way dynamics from Gaia-like observations.

So: instead of noting that an inverse-square behavior for the force of gravity fits the data, assume that gravity obeys an inverse power law and fit for the power. (It’s two, to within the errors.) Of course there have been many higher-precision tests of gravity in the Solar System than this one; the new thing here is that the data are simply the positions and velocities of all the planets at one particular moment in time, no direct dynamical measurements. A little bit of Bayesian voodoo magic, and there you go.

What I want to know is, what makes the authors so convinced that their instantaneous kinematic snapshot is valid tomorrow?

I have a new paper out with Sonny Mantry and Michael Ramsey-Musolf, following up on our earlier paper with Chris Stubbs. The original idea was to imagine a new long-range force that couples directly to dark matter, but not to ordinary visible matter. (A simple scalar force, which is universally attractive between any two objects, as opposed to all the messy complications of a dark electromagnetic force.) Due to the magic of quantum mechanics, such a force will couple indirectly to ordinary matter via virtual particles. So in the first paper we studied how you could use fifth-force searches in ordinary matter to look for such dark forces.

In this paper we are a little more systematic, and we follow Jo Bovy and Glennys Farrar in also considering consequences for direct dark matter detection experiments, as well as dark matter searches at colliders. Here is the (somewhat lengthy) abstract:

Implications of a Scalar Dark Force for Terrestrial Experiments
Authors: Sean M. Carroll, Sonny Mantry, Michael J. Ramsey-Musolf

Abstract: A long range Weak Equivalence Principle (WEP) violating force between Dark Matter (DM) particles, mediated by an ultralight scalar, is tightly constrained by galactic dynamics and large scale structure formation. We examine the implications of such a “dark force” for several terrestrial experiments, including Eotvos tests of the WEP, direct-detection DM searches, and collider studies. The presence of a dark force implies a non-vanishing effect in Eotvos tests that could be probed by current and future experiments depending on the DM model. For scalar singlet DM scenarios, a dark force of astrophysically relevant magnitude is ruled out in large regions of parameter space by the DM relic density and WEP constraints. WEP tests also imply constraints on the Higgs-exchange contributions to the spin-independent (SI) DM-nucleus direct detection cross-section. For WIMP scenarios, these considerations constrain Higgs-exchange contributions to the SI cross-section to be subleading compared to gauge-boson mediated contributions. In multicomponent DM scenarios, a dark force would preclude large shifts in the rate for Higgs decay to two photons associated with DM-multiplet loops that might otherwise lead to measurable deviations at the LHC or a future linear collider. The combination of observations from galactic dynamics, large scale structure formation, Eotvos experiments, DM-direct-detection experiments, and colliders can further constrain the size of new long range forces in the dark sector.

The looming problem with this whole game is that a long-range scalar force is unnatural. A scalar field should, by all rights, have a large mass, and that kind of mass drastically limits the range of the corresponding force. (That’s why the weak interactions are negligible compared to electromagnetism for everyday purposes; the W and Z bosons have a large mass, while the photon is massless.) You can keep scalar fields light by imposing symmetries, but that also tends to squelch any interesting interactions. But okay, it’s also unnatural for the Higgs boson to have a mass less than the Planck scale, or for the cosmological constant to be much less than the Planck scale. Unnatural things happen in the real world, so it’s not crazy to try to understand how they would manifest themselves.

The question is, once you’ve allowed yourself some unnaturalness, where do you stop? In this paper we’ve tried hard to minimize the number of parameters we unnaturally tuned to small values. We’ve tuned things to keep the scalar field light while not messing up the mass of the ordinary Higgs field, but tried not to tune anything else. In that case there should be mixing of the new scalar with the Higgs, and that mixing plays an important role in the phenomenology. In particular, there are implications for ground-based experiments; thus the title! It’s a long paper, but if you read one paper on the implications of a scalar dark force for terrestrial experiments this week, it should definitely be this one.

David Harris at symmetry breaking points to a paper and accompanying commentary on the search for high-energy cosmic antiprotons by the PAMELA satellite experiment. (What one defines as “high-energy” depends on one’s upbringing; we’re talking about energies of up to 100 times the mass of the proton.) The impression is given that this is a brand-new result casting doubt on the earlier claims that PAMELA might have detected evidence for dark matter; that’s not really a correct impression, so it’s worth getting it all straight.

The PAMELA satellite, an Italian/Russian/German/Swedish collaboration, looks at high-energy cosmic rays from orbit, and pays particular attention to the presence of antimatter — basically, positrons (anti-electrons) and anti-protons. Part of the idea is that a high-energy matter particle can simply be a particle that had been lying around for a while and was accelerated to large velocities by magnetic fields or other astrophysical processes, whereas you need some pretty high energies to produce antiparticles in the first place. Say, for example, from the annihilation of dark matter particles with each other. There are certainly some high-energy collisions in the ordinary non-dark-matter world, so you expect to see a certain fraction of antimatter, but that fraction should noticeably diminish as you get to higher and higher energies.

So in October the experiment released two papers back to back:

A new measurement of the antiproton-to-proton flux ratio up to 100 GeV in the cosmic radiation
Authors: O. Adriani et al.
arXiv:0810.4994

Observation of an anomalous positron abundance in the cosmic radiation
Authors: O. Adriani et al.
arXiv:0810.4995

If you look closely, you’ll notice the second paper has 10 trackbacks to its abstract on arxiv, while the first doesn’t have any (until now!). The reason is clear: the second paper has the word “anomalous” in the title. The PAMELA measurements of positrons deviate significantly from the theoretical expectation, while the measurements of anti-protons reported in the first paper are exactly what you might have predicted. Who wants to write about observations that fit theories we already have?

You might remember the PAMELA positron result as the one that created a stir when they gave a talk before submitting their paper, and theorists in the audience snapped pictures of the data with their cell phone cameras and proceeded to write papers about it. Those wacky theorists.

Here is the relevant positron plot, from paper 2 above:

The vertical axis is the fraction of positrons in the total sample of electrons+positrons, plotted against energy. The red dots are the data, and the black curve is the theoretical prediction from ordinary astrophysical processes. Not the best fit, eh? At low energies that is not a surprise, as “weather” effects such as solar activity can get in the way of observing low-energy positrons. But at high energies the prediction should be more robust, and that’s where it’s the worst. Indeed, it’s pretty clear that the fraction of positrons is increasing with energy, which is pretty baffling, but could conceivably come from dark matter annihilations. See Resonaances for more discussion.

And here is the version for antiprotons, from paper 1 above:

Now that’s what we call a fit to the data; again, fraction of antiprotons plotted versus energy, and the data go up and down just as predicted.

What happened is that the PAMELA collaboration submitted their second paper (anomalous positrons) to Nature, and their first paper (well-behaved antiprotons) to Physical Review Letters. The latter paper has just now appeared in print, which is why Simon Swordy’s commentary in Physics appeared, etc. Although the idea behind Physics (expert-level commentary on recently published articles) is a good one, it’s sponsored by the American Physical Society, and therefore pretends that the only interesting articles are those that appear in journals published by the American Physical Society. Which Nature is most surely not.

So one might get the impression that the antiproton result is a blow against the idea that we are seeing dark-matter annihilations. Which it is; if you didn’t know any better, you would certainly expect to see an excess of antiprotons in dark-matter annihilations just as surely as you would expect to see an excess of positrons. But it’s not a new blow; the papers appeared on arxiv (which is what really matters) at the same time!

And it’s not a blow that can’t be recovered from. All you have to do is declare that your dark matter candidate is “hadrophobic,” and likes to annihilate into electrons and positrons rather than protons and antiprotons. Not an easy task, but that’s why theorists get paid the exorbitant salaries we do. (Without ready access to champagne and caviar, we can hardly be expected to justify unusual branching ratios in WIMP annihilations.) The favorite model out there right now belongs to Arkani-Hamed, Finkbeiner, Slatyer, and Weiner, featuring a new gauge force that is broken at relatively low energies. But there are various models on the market, and the number is only going to grow.

Most likely the PAMELA positron excess is coming from something that can be fit quite nicely into the Standard Model of particle physics, like pulsars. That’s my guess, anyway. Happily, there’s all sorts of data coming down the pike that will help us sort it out.

Gravity is a weak force, which makes it extremely difficult to do actual experiments (or perform astronomical observations) that would give us any detailed, up-close-and-personal data about the behavior of quantum gravity. We should be thankful, therefore, that we’ve been able to learn as much as we have about quantum gravity (and we do know some things) just by sitting in our chairs and doing thought experiments, constrained only by the basic principles of general relativity and quantum mechanics. Undoubtedly the most prolific thought-experiment laboratories have been black holes. In particular, Hawking’s discovery that black holes radiate and have entropy has driven an enormous amount of research, and some of it has actually been productive! One of the highlights was certainly the calculation in 1996 by Strominger and Vafa, who used some tricks from string theory to actually count the number of quantum states hidden in a black hole, in a way that would have made Boltzmann proud, and come up with an answer that matched Hawking’s formula precisely.

There are still puzzles, however, as you might guess. Foremost among them is “How does the information get out?” An increasing number of physicists believe that the evaporation of black holes conserves information, but they don’t know precisely how the details of the state which created the black hole get preserved and then encoded in the outgoing Hawking radiation.

A lesser-known puzzle, which many people don’t even consider a puzzle, hearkens back to a 1994 paper by Stephen Hawking, Gary Horowitz, and Simon Ross. They were trying to use the particular technique called Euclidean Quantum Gravity (in which you temporarily forget that time is any different than space) to calculate rates at which different things could happen, when the stumbled across a puzzle. They calculated the entropy of black holes with electric charge, and in particular of extremal black holes — configurations where all of the energy really comes from the electric field itself, none from any purported mass that might have fallen into the black hole. And for an extremal black hole, they found an unusual answer: zero! That was a surprise, because it is not what Hawking’s original formula (entropy is proportional to area of the event horizon) should give you for such a situation.

Most people (including, I think, the authors) believe that this result is not trustworthy, and reflects a breakdown of the particular method used, rather than a deep truth about extremal black holes. But in a field where actual data is sparse on the ground, it’s worth keeping puzzles in mind, hoping that some day they will teach you something.

Matt Johnson, Lisa Randall and I just submitted a paper in which we revisit this puzzle. We suggest that maybe it’s not just a simple breakdown of the methods of Euclidean quantum gravity, but perhaps something interesting is going on.

Extremal limits and black hole entropy
Authors: Sean M. Carroll, Matthew C. Johnson, Lisa Randall

Abstract: Taking the extremal limit of a non-extremal Reissner-Nordström black hole (by externally varying the mass or charge), the region between the inner and outer event horizons experiences an interesting fate — while this region is absent in the extremal case, it does not disappear in the extremal limit but rather approaches a patch of $AdS_2times S^2$. In other words, the approach to extremality is not continuous, as the non-extremal Reissner-Nordström solution splits into two spacetimes at extremality: an extremal black hole and a disconnected $AdS$ space. We suggest that the unusual nature of this limit may help in understanding the entropy of extremal black holes.

Let’s unpack this a little bit. …

Where Does the Entropy Go?Read More »

Prior to Einstein, physicists believed that light waves, like water waves, were ripples in a medium: instead of the ocean, they posited the existence of the luminiferious aether, some form of substance which supported the propagation of electromagnetic waves. If that idea had been true, one would imagine there would be a unique frame of reference in which the aether was at rest, while it was moving in other frames; consequently, the speed of light would depend on one’s motion through the aether. This idea was basically scotched by the Michelson-Morley experiment, which showed that the speed of light was unaffected by the motion of the Earth around the Sun. The idea was eventually superseded by special relativity, although (as with most interesting ideas) some adherents gave up only reluctantly. Indeed, if you had asked Hendrik Antoon Lorentz himself about the meaning of the famous Lorentz transformations he invented, he would not have said “they relate physical quantities measured in different inertial frames”; he would have said “they relate quantities as measured in some moving reference frame to their true values in the rest frame of the aether.”

We know a lot more about field theory as well as about relativity these days, so we don’t need to invoke a concept like the aether to explain the propagation of light, and the idea that there is no special preferred frame of rest has been experimentally tested to exquisite precision. But precision, even when exquisite, is never absolute, and important discoveries are often lurking in the margins. So it’s interesting to contemplate the possibility that there really is some kind of field in the universe that defines an absolute standard of rest, within the modern context of low-energy effective field theories. Instead of a light-carrying medium, we are interested in the possibility of a Lorentz-violating vector field — some four-dimensional vector that has a fixed non-zero length and points in some direction at every event in spacetime. But the name “aether” is too good to abandon, so we’ve re-purposed it for modern use.

A lot of work has gone into exploring the possible consequences and experimental constraints on the idea of an aether field pervading the universe (see reviews by Ted Jacobson or David Mattingly, or Alan Kostelecky’s web page). But the ideas are still relatively new, and there are still questions about whether such models are fundamentally well-defined. Tim Dulaney, Moira Gresham, Heywood Tam and I have been thinking about these issues for a while, and we’ve just come out with two papers presenting what we’ve worked out. Here is the first one:

Instabilities in the Aether
Authors: Sean M. Carroll, Timothy R. Dulaney, Moira I. Gresham, Heywood Tam

Abstract: We investigate the stability of theories in which Lorentz invariance is spontaneously broken by fixed-norm vector “aether” fields. Models with generic kinetic terms are plagued either by ghosts or by tachyons, and are therefore physically unacceptable. There are precisely three kinetic terms that are not manifestly unstable: a sigma model $(partial_mu A_nu)^2$, the Maxwell Lagrangian $F_{munu}F^{munu}$, and a scalar Lagrangian $(partial_mu A^mu)^2$. The timelike sigma-model case is well-defined and stable when the vector norm is fixed by a constraint; however, when it is determined by minimizing a potential there is necessarily a tachyonic ghost, and therefore an instability. In the Maxwell and scalar cases, the Hamiltonian is unbounded below, but at the level of perturbation theory there are fewer degrees of freedom and the models are stable. However, in these two theories there are obstacles to smooth evolution for certain choices of initial data.

As the title says, here we’re investigating whether aether theories are stable. That is, when you have the vector field in what you think should be the “vacuum” state, with all of the vectors aligned and nothing jiggling around, can a small perturbation lead to some sort of runaway growth, or would it just oscillate peacefully? If you do get runaway behavior, the theory is unstable, which is bad news for thinking of the theory as a sensible starting point for experimental tests. This is one of the first questions you should ask about any theory, and it’s been investigated quite a bit in the case of aether. But there is a subtlety: because you have violated Lorentz invariance, it’s not enough to check stability in the aether rest frame, you need to do it in every frame. (A perturbation caused by a source moving rapidly in a rocket ship is still a legitimate perturbation.) What we found was that almost all aether theories are unstable in some frame or another. There are just three exceptions, which we called the “sigma model” theory, the “Maxwell” theory, and the “scalar” theory.

You might ask, what is this talk about “theories”? Why is there more than one theory? For a vector field, it turns out that there are a number of different quantities you can define (three, to be precise) that might play the role of a “kinetic energy.” So we study a three-dimensional parameter space of theories, corresponding to any possible mixture of those three quantities. The three theories we pick out as stable are simply three specific mixtures of the different kinds of kinetic energy. The Maxwell theory is very similar to ordinary electromagnetism, while the scalar theory more closely resembles a scalar field than a vector field.

The other theory is actually our favorite, as both the Maxwell and scalar cases seem to have potential lurking pathologies that we can’t completely get rid of (although the situation is a bit murky). So we wrote a shorter paper examining the empirical behavior and constraints on that model:

Sigma-Model Aether
Authors: Sean M. Carroll, Timothy R. Dulaney, Moira I. Gresham, Heywood Tam

Abstract: Theories of low-energy Lorentz violation by a fixed-norm “aether” vector field with two-derivative kinetic terms have a globally bounded Hamiltonian and are perturbatively stable only if the vector is timelike and the kinetic term in the action takes the form of a sigma model. Here we investigate the phenomenological properties of this theory. We first consider the propagation of modes in the presence of gravity, and show that there is a unique choice of curvature coupling that leads to a theory without superluminal modes. Experimental constraints on this theory come from a number of sources, and we examine bounds in a two-dimensional parameter space. We then consider the cosmological evolution of the aether, arguing that the vector will naturally evolve to be orthogonal to constant-density hypersurfaces in a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmology. Finally, we examine cosmological evolution in the presence of an extra compact dimension of space, concluding that a vector can maintain a constant projection along the extra dimension in an expanding universe only when the expansion is exponential.

Even this theory, as interesting as it is, is plagued by a problem. In the spirit of low-energy phenomenology, we basically fix the length of the vector field by hand. But we recognize that in a more complete description, there is probably some potential energy that gets minimized when the vector takes on that value. But if you allow for any variation whatsoever in the length of the vector, you are immediately confronted with a dramatic instability once more.

So, to be honest, there are no aether theories that we can guarantee are perfectly well-behaved, even as low-energy effective theories. (All the problems we identify exist at arbitrarily low energies, and don’t rely on the short-distance behavior of the models.) The three theories to which we gave names are problematic but not manifestly unstable, so it will be worth further investigation to see if they can be patched up and made respectable.