There goes checkers July 21, 2007
Posted by dorigo in physics.6 comments
It’s official. The game of checkers (or draughts), the one which is played on a 8×8 board like the one used for chess, is solved. That means humans now know. We do not exactly know how to play out every position at best, but we have pocketed the crucial proof that, given perfect play, no side can win. The starting position is, in fact, a draw - something that had been considered true for a long time without a real demonstration.
The proof came just a few days ago with an extensive calculation with desktop computers, which took 18 years to complete. A subset of the hundred billion billion different positions arising in checkers have been studied in order to achieve the result. The New Scientist has the story here.
How long more will it take to solve the game of chess ? Well, fear not. Despite the achieved supremacy of computers on over-the-board play (with some caveats, true), and despite the complete solution of five- and six-men positions, computers will never solve chess, because the possible positions to study are just too many.
Sa Ruxi July 19, 2007
Posted by dorigo in personal, travel.3 comments
Sa Ruxi is the name of a beach in the south-east coast of Sardinia. A wonderful place with small strands of sand alternated with granite rocks emerging from the crystalline water.
To reach the beach one has to park the car a hundred meters above, and follow a uneasy path down through the bushes. But it’s worth it - the water has a wonderful set of tones of blue, and the trouble of reaching the place diverts most tourists to more accessible places nearby, making your stay there lonely and relaxed.
I knew Sardinia is a great place for a vacation on the beach, but for one reason or another I had never been able to visit it. After a few days here (and using previous experience in Croatia, Lampedusa, Greece, Formentera, and a few other very nice places on the coast), I can confidently say that the best beaches of our Mediterranean Sea have little to envy to the Caribbean. Sure, no coralline reef, a less diverse mixture of marine species, and a less exotic setting, but there definitely is beauty here too.
Here is an aerial view of the south-east coast of Sardinia:

The zone has many sandy beaches, as is evident from the color of the water. Below Filippo and Ilaria are walking on the bit of paradise where we spent this afternoon:

Slides of a seminar for italian students July 18, 2007
Posted by dorigo in personal, physics, science.add a comment
A few months ago I gave a seminar to high school students in Bassano, in the context of the 2007 Master Classes. The seminar was aimed at giving a broad panorama of the science of particle collisions and to focus the students’ attention on the searches for the Higgs boson, which will be a hot topic at the LHC next year.
I think I did a fair job at covering the matter in the restricted amount of time I could use. You can have a look at the slides here (sorry, they are in Italian, although most of the material is quite understandable even if you do not understand the language).
I had forgotten about the material I am making available here, but I was reminded of it by a colleague who asked me for some help to put together an introductory seminar on collider physics at the Tevatron… I hope the slides can be of some use. They have some political twist here and there, and of course some personal pitch.
The Say of the Week July 17, 2007
Posted by dorigo in games, humor, science.5 comments
“Alla partenza: sensazione simile a quella che si proverebbe cadendo in un buco nero“
(At the start: sensation similar to what one would feel falling in a black hole)
[Paola de Carolis, Il Corriere della Sera, July 17th, 2007, in a diagram describing the 18' swim of Lewis Gordon Pugh, who dove in -1.5 degree artic waters].
The writer would deserve to be addressed as Walter Matthau did once: “You are so imbecile that at a World Championship of imbeciles you would get second place. Why second ? Because you are such an imbecile…”
Pedophile priests: one in 45 July 15, 2007
Posted by dorigo in news, politics.11 comments
113 out of 5000. That is 2.26 +- 0.21 %: the fraction of priests who served in the Los Angeles area between 1940 and 2003 and were accused or convicted of pedophile acts.
The figures I quote above come from a startling article I read today on the web site of La Repubblica. There, I learn that the LA church has decided yesterday to settle the matter without going to trial, by agreeing to pay a hefty 660 million dollars (that’s right, 660 thousand grands) to 508 victims. And this is not even a first timer: just last December a similar agreement was reached to prevent the limelights of mediatic attention on a very embarassing trial. In that case, a mere 60 million dollars were used to silence 40 more victims of abuse.
The Archdiocese of Los Angeles appears quite willing to settle these cases without the hassle of a Jury assessing the truthfulness of the accusations, and thus sparing cardinal Mahony the embarassment of a testimony. This will probably allow religious followers the escape of blaming the accusators for making things up, for vile monetary reasons, rather than having them forced to reckon with the truth of a verdict.
If 2.26% of them got caught, how many more got away with it ? We will never know. Let me guess. 5% ? 6% ? Or 10% ? I am sure Los Angeles is not the best place for a priest to indulge in illegal acts against children, but still, the power of plagiarism of a charismatic figure per antonomasia, plus the shame and young age of the victims, and the faith of their relatives, must make it very hard for these abuses to emerge even in environments such as the United States, which are a country otherwise very protective for children (granted, of that LA is not the prime example).
Being a priest is the best thing that can happen to a pedophile, it seems: not only does your job allow you to be in close contact with children in an environment where you are trusted and where you are perfectly entitled to spending time with any of them alone. Not only does your position give you the means. Your bosses will also do their utmost to cover your sins up if they at all can. And, if worse comes to worst, all that can happen to you is to be moved, and forced to start your plagiarism from scratch. Of the 113 accused priests, 43 are dead, and 54 have changed occupation, but 16 are still serving the catholic church.
To make an example of the mechanism, let me quote from the detailed article on the Los Angeles Times:
In 1986, Baker told Mahony that he had abused two or three boys several years before. Instead of calling police, Mahony sent the priest to New Mexico for treatment and over the years transferred him to nine different parishes, where he allegedly molested 23 boys and girls.
A question remains to be asked. Should we think at Los Angeles as a weird place ? Well, for sure LA is not Heaven, but it seems quite reasonable (and is indeed suggested in a BBC documentary on the phenomenon) to believe that the cancer of pedophile priests who abuse of children while they teach them religion is more or less evenly distributed throughout the dioceses of the whole catholic world – a belief fortified by the practice of the Vatican, that hushes the scandals up, and moves priests accused of these crimes to far away places, where nobody knows them, and where – maybe I am a bit cynical here - they are free to start fresh.
Blogging from a ship July 13, 2007
Posted by dorigo in internet, personal, travel.add a comment
This is a first-timer for me. It’s midnight, I just boarded a big ship that will bring me and my family to Sardinia overnight, and I am blogging from my couch on a cabin of the luxurious liner. Here is a pic, taken on the harbour of Livorno:

Guest post: Fabio Zandanel, “Dark Matter and the MAGIC telescope” July 12, 2007
Posted by dorigo in Blogroll, astronomy, physics, science.12 comments
Fabio Zandanel is a graduate student working with the MAGIC experiment group of the Padua University – INFN at the Physics Department “G.Galilei”. In his recent diploma thesis, he analyzed cosmic gamma rays data for a dark matter search within the MAGIC collaboration.
The Facts
Despite the rich physics progress in the last century, several issues are still open. The last WMAP experiment results brought excitement in the scientific community, in particular in the cosmological one. This experiment underlined that the Universe expansion is accelerating, its geometry is flat and about 96% of its content is in an unknown form. Only 4% of the Universe is accounted of baryonic matter, the so-called “ordinary” matter.
About 73% of the Universe density is accounted for by dark energy, a bizarre form of energy or matter that is, in effect, gravitationally repulsive. The dark energy is thought as the responsible for the actual accelerated Universe expansion.
The Universe is formed for about 23% by the so-called dark matter, that is thought as non-baryonic weakly-interacting (i.e. interacting only gravitationally) matter. There are many evidences on the dark matter existence. The most striking observational evidence, on galactic scales, comes from the observations of the galaxies rotational curves, i.e. graphs of the circular velocities of gas and stars as a function of the distance from the center of the accounted galaxy. In a Newtonian framework, the circular velocity of objects at a distance r from the center of a galaxy goes as 1/r^2. The observations of several galaxies underlined that angular velocities grow in the central region of the galaxies (as expected) but then stay constant further in the galactic halo, instead of the expected lowering. This fact suggested the presence of an unknown matter component contrasting the expected behavior. There are other experimental evidences concerning dark matter, both on sub-galactic and inter-galactic scales, coming from a great variety of data. For example, recent results on the so-called “bullet” clustering of galaxies are strong evidences for the existence of dark matter. Studying the collision between two galaxy clusters and evaluating the total amount of matter, using the gravitational lensing, the presence of a great quantity of matter which do not suffer the effect of the collision is evident.
The estimation of the total amount of dark matter is possible through observations on cosmological scales. In fact, analyzing the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) temperature anisotropies, it is possible to put stringent constraints on the abundances of baryons and matter in the Universe and from these data of the WMAP experiment, derive our estimation of the dark matter content of the Universe.
The Hypothesis
There are a lot of theories which try to describe the dark matter, each with its own preferential candidate. As said above, the dark matter seems to be non-baryonic, weakling-interacting and relatively massive matter (this in order to explain its great contribution to the total density of the Universe).
The search for a solution to the dark matter paradigm leads to physics beyond the Standard Model. Among the great variety of hypotheses, the most studied candidates are the supersymmetric neutralino, in the supersymmetric theories framework, the Kaluza-Klein particle, in the extra-dimensions theories framework, and the axion hypothesis, a particle supposed to exist in order to explain the CP violation problem in particle physics. Unfortunately, the actual knowledge does not permit to favor a candidate among the others. The search for the dark matter explanation is an hard work due to difficulties of doing direct measurements of the nature of dark matter.
One of the possibilities to indirectly detect the dark matter is through the observations of the products of its annihilations. In our work, we investigate the possibility of a gamma ray flux coming from dark matter annihilation, i.e. of a detectable photon emission. Such a gamma ray emission is proportional to the squared dark matter density. Thus, a detectable photon flux is expected from those Universe regions where strong enhancements in the dark matter density are present, that is where strong gravitational fields are present.
This is, for example, the case of the Galactic Center, where should be present a Super-Massive Black Hole, or of the Dwarf Spheroidal galaxies, where seems to be present a large amount of dark matter. Another scenario that has taken growing importance in the last years, is the one concerning the Intermediate-Mass Black Holes (IMBH). These objects should be black holes with a different origin with respect to both the stellar and super-massive black holes, and with masses ranging from 20 to a million of solar masses. The existence of these objects is not definitively demonstrated yet, even if a lot of experimental evidences exist. However, the models involving IMBHs give more optimistic previsions about the possibility of observation with respect to, for example, the Galactic Center case.
In particular, in our work, we used a recent model ( Bertone, Zentner, Silk, 2005) that forecasts a detectable gamma rays emission from the dark matter density enhancements around IMBHs, probably present in our Galactic Halo. The main goal of this model is that the previsions about the gamma rays flux coming from these enhancements (called “mini-spikes”) are very stable with respect to the particle physics parameters of the problem, i.e. changing the particle that should be dark matter (and thus the annihilation channels, branching ratios and so on), and the dark matter density profiles about the mini-spikes are well established: i.e. there are few “free” parameters and they have a little impact on the model final previsions. Moreover, these mini-spikes should be very bright gamma-ray sources!
The characteristics of such a type of signal would be a power law spectrum with an exponential cut-off at energies related with the dark matter particle mass (in the figure, some prediction examples for a possible mini-spikes signal are shown; in this case the dark matter is supposed to be constituted by a supersymmetric neutralino). The observation of several objects with the same spectral characteristics and with cut-offs at the same energies would be a smoking gun signature about the dark matter and also about the IMBHs.

The MAGIC Experiment
As explained above, our interest is to detect a gamma-ray flux coming from “mini-spikes” around IMBHs.
The MAGIC telescope (Major Atmospheric Gamma-Ray Imaging Cherenkov) is a ground-based gamma ray instrument. It is one of the four existent IACTs (Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes) in the world. Its target is the observation of astrophysical sources through the detection of the emitted gamma rays, using the so-called Imaging Cherenkov technique. The direct observation of the gamma rays from the Earth ground is impossible, because they are completely absorbed by the atmosphere. However, during the absorption process a cascade of charged particles is formed, the atmospheric showers, that by themselves produce light flashes, the so-called Cherenkov light flashes. An IACT observes these flashes, focusing them on a pixelled camera composed by photo-multipliers. Then, the Imaging technique contemplates to analyze the images formed by the Cherenkov flashes on the camera, in order to get the informations about the primary gamma ray, principally its energy and coming direction. It is important to emphasize that the photons of the source are only the 0.1% of the totality of the cosmic-ray events that constantly impinge the Earth atmosphere, thus IACTs need to use very sophisticated analysis techniques to select the searched signal on a dominant background.
On the other hand, the space-borne telescopes can direct detect gamma rays, in space, through the pair production phenomenon. The EGRET experiment, the latest space-borne telescope, which finished operation in the year 2000, observed about 300 sources in the energies from MeV up to 10 GeV, while the old ground-based telescopes observed only ten sources above 250 GeV. Thus, the idea that some important astrophysical processes happen in the energy gap not accessible to any of the previous instruments, brought the MAGIC collaboration to propose the construction of a 17 m diameter imaging Cherenkov telescope.
The MAGIC telescope was developed to efficiently study the energy range between 50 and 300 GeV, in order to cover the energy gap between the previous gamma instruments. The telescope is placed at the Roque de Los Muchachos observatory in the Canary Island of La Palma, at an altitude of 2245 m above the sea level. Its principal characteristics are the large parabolic reflecting surface and the very light structure, which permits very fast pointings (of about 30 s), very important in order to study temporal transient phenomena (such as gamma-ray bursts). The MAGIC telescope is the biggest existing Cherenkov telescope in the world, and the IACT with the lowest energy threshold. A second telescope, of equal characteristics - MAGIC II - is under construction in the same site to increase the sensitivity of the experiment, particularly at the low end of the energy spectrum.

The Observations
The MAGIC collaboration is performing an observation campaign in order to find a gamma flux coming from dark matter annihilation. The Galactic Center was observed by MAGIC, and also by other ground-based telescopes, and, in fact, a gamma-ray signal was detected. However, the observed gamma signal does not match with any dark matter scenario. The problem is that the observational direction of the Galactic Center is overloaded with bright gamma sources, and it is difficult to disentangle a dark matter annihilation gamma signal from less exotic astrophysical sources.
Also the dwarf spheroidal galaxy Draco is under observation, and analysis results are expected soon.
For the IMBH scenario, as said above, those objects should be very bright gamma-ray sources. Thus, the EGRET experiment could have observed some of those objects present in our Galactic Halo. Among the 300 sources observed by EGRET, about 100 of these are still unidentified, i.e. their emission is still unexplained. Thus, it is normal to search for IMBHs within the so-called unidentified EGRET sources.
It is possible to do a selection of candidates within the unidentified EGRET sources in a way that satisfies the constraints forecast by the chosen model. The biggest problem with these types of sources is the position uncertainty and the possible flux errors. EGRET had a bad position accuracy with respect to the actual ground-based telescopes and also with respect to the next generation space-borne instruments, such as the Italian AGILE (already in orbit) or GLAST (which will be launched at the end of this year). Moreover, the flux measured by EGRET could suffer from much higher uncertainty than the accounted ones, and thus wrong predictions are possible.
At this moment, no significant results have been obtained. We must perform other observations and wait the results of the next generation space-borne satellite that can spur new effort in this field. For example, GLAST, with its enhanced sensitivity, will be able to observe several IMBHs – if they exist - giving very accurate position of those objects for the ground-based telescopes observations. The collaboration between the space-borne and the ground-based telescopes will be very important because the former can measure the “low” energies fluxes while the latter can observe the high energy part of the spectrum.
Getting tenure by force of law July 11, 2007
Posted by dorigo in news, personal, physics, politics.23 comments
The italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics (INFN) is a research institution that sponsors research in High-Energy Physics, Nuclear Physics, Astroparticle Physics, Theoretical Physics, and Technology Research. It is a very important entity, which distributes funding and resources to all the italian efforts in HEP.
I currently have a position as INFN researcher which I won through a national search and a tough exam two years ago. Technically, the position is not tenured - it is going to expire on December 20th, 2010. These 5-year terms were conceived by the INFN as a means of bringing order in the selection of personnel, which used to occur by more obscure means through university-based selections where the would-be-winner was usually known in advance - and was usually not the best candidate.
I wrote about my exam in a series of posts [ here, here (the 42 questions!), here (the second exam), and here (final standings)] in my old Quantum Diaries blog. The interesting story is that the direction of INFN had decided the 16 positions, assigned to me and 15 other colleagues chosen from a set of more than 200 contenders, were to be made tenured “automatically” as soon as INFN had the funds to do so.
Actually, there is a more interesting story to tell… In Padova, there were at least three “strong” candidates for research positions at the end of 2005, and two researcher positions were about to be announced by Padova university. The latter are tenured, and paid by the university, not the INFN: there is no big difference, but the devil always hides in the details.
Now, while the three candidates and other younger aspirants were waiting for these openings, the national INFN selection (which was immediately dubbed “concorsone“, big selection) was announced. Immediately, the big mushrooms in Padova made it clear to all of us fools that we all had to apply, go to Rome, and try to win those positions: only those who had participated in the big selection and had not managed to win a INFN position could then apply to the university researcher selections.
The reasoning was clear: the university wanted to maximize the number of researchers from Padova which would be funded by the INFN, to get more positions, relieve the pressure from below, and leave as much space as possible for more manouvering to fill the two university researcher positions via less-than-meritocratic means. In fact, the university openings had been delayed so much that the suspicion it was done on purpose, to wait for the INFN selection to come first, arose in many astute minds…
The thing was disappointing to me, since I would have preferred to make a career in the University, for personal reasons (I love to teach). But I complied: I went to Rome, participated in the national selection of the INFN, and won first place. Others were not as “lucky”: one of the two other strong candidates from Padova did not even pass the written tests (but I do believe it was not done on purpose), the other passed the written test but did not bother showing up for the oral part, thus throwing away an almost certain qualification for a INFN position.
Later, those two colleagues of mine smoothly won the two selections in Padova - the big mushrooms declaring they could not do more than reproach the non-sportsmanlike behavior of at least one of them. So, in the end all the three “seasoned” candidates in Padova got a position, but of the three I was clearly the one that had played most fairly - and of course, I was also the one who got the worst of it.
I was not embittered by those facts. First, because I did not care about tenure - I am wealthy enough to be unconcerned by the “safety” of a lifetime-assured 2000$/month salary. Second, because I after all only care to be able to continue doing what I have been doing - research (you still can be assigned courses as a INFN researcher if you care to). Third, because I know human nature enough to pardon the occasional lack of fairness of my colleagues - not everybody cares about one’s own integrity. Of course, my judgement of the involved individuals changed a bit in the process, but that is a detail.
So now, two years later, I am here with a temporary position. But not for long! A few months ago the INFN has been granted the necessary funding and a “green light” to proceed by the center-left government led by Romano Prodi (who during the 2006 campaign had promised to increase funding for research, and is now doing steps in the right direction after a shaky start). Now, all of us who have a temporary INFN position acquired through a open selection and lasting three years or more, can ask and obtain to be “regularized” - id est, change our position into a tenured one.
Tomorrow I will send my own letter to INFN, where I declare I meet the required criteria and ask for a regularization. Which, however, will not happen before three years from first appointment - end of 2008.
That is good to know: in December 2008 I will both get tenure and discover SUSY with CMS! Or only the latter… Whomever knows italian bureaucracy enough will agree that the former is the less probable of the two events, despite the existence of funding, declarations of intents, and written documents proving the correctness of the regularization process. Italy is arguably the country with the highest number of laws and the lowest level of legality in the european community. The dubious likelihood of discovering SUSY with 10 inverse picobarns of data stands a giant if compared to the probability that all goes smoothly with my tenure!
Blogging in July July 10, 2007
Posted by dorigo in Blogroll, astronomy, internet, news, physics, science.add a comment
July is not the most active month for most of us. And indeed, many of the blogs I usually read have decreased their usual output rate. Anyway, I found some stuff around that you might appreciate giving a look at, or not (I did):
- Marni Dee Sheppeard, aka Kea, is blogging from GRG18 in Sydney, giving concise but meaningful reports - in stark contrast with my own report style (see my recent posts from PASCOS).
- Zerocold explains how to use salt to cool beer. That is, he asks for an explanation of the physics…
- Chad Orzel discusses charity institutions and gives a meaningful list of ones that do not carry a religious label.
- Louise Riofrio tells us about the new Boeing, and she has a surprise in store for July 20th.
- Jennifer Ouellette tells about the bay area Exploratorium.
- The Resonaances blog has an insightful post about Planck.
- Dave Bacon runs a poll on the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.
The Quark-Gluon Plasma Paradox July 9, 2007
Posted by dorigo in physics.14 comments
Lazily browsing the web in search of something that could divert my attention from the endless morning talks of the CMS-italy meeting, which is taking place at the 5-star Romano Palace Hotel in Catania, I found myself reading a hep-ph preprint on the “Quark-gluon plasma paradox”, by Dariusz Miskowiec.
The word “paradox” triggers my interest like few other things. The paper in question is a pleasantly easy read, and is very qualitative in style. I have no clue on whether the ideas contained therein are meaningful or crackpotty, but the reasoning is simple enough that it can be summarized here in a simple way. In fact, after a bunch of reports from PASCOS 2007, which I unfortunately wrote in a way hard to understand for whomever lacks a PhD in theoretical particle physics (me included), I made the resolution of keeping the next ten posts in the Physics category at a level simple enough that my 8-years-old son can understand. Explaining a quark-gluon plasma paradox, however, does require some initial pedantic definitions, so bear with me if you will.
A quark-gluon plasma is a state of matter believed to form when the density of hadrons (or their temperature, which is in some sense equivalent: the two quantities are in fact connected by the equation of state of the system) exceeds a certain critical level. Hadrons are particles composed of quarks. Mesons are hadrons composed of quark-antiquark pairs, and baryons are hadrons composed of three quarks. Both have zero net color charge (they are “colorless”), and have integer baryon number B, while quarks and gluons are colored and have fractional (quarks) or zero (gluons) baryon number. To exemplify, you can make a B=0 meson by combining a B=-1/3 anti-red antiquark with a B=1/3 red quark. Or you can make a B=1 baryon by combining three B=1/3 quarks of the three different “primary” colors red, green, and blue.
These particles, mesons and baryons, may lose their individuality if you bring some of them together at a high enough temperature. They “melt” in the resulting plasma, composed of quarks and gluons that move around freely, “deconfined”, i.e. not bounded inside an enclosing volume of zero net color and integer baryon number. Quarks and gluons, which are usually sources of the QCD (Quantum ChromoDynamic) color field, are free from the QCD force which usually binds them because they are tightly encircled by other charges, whose effect is to screen their own charge.
A quark-gluon plasma is believed to be present inside neutron stars, and to have constituted the bulk of matter in the initial microsecond after the big bang: two reasons why studying it is of great interest to physicists, astrophysicists, and cosmologists. However, creating a plasma of quarks and gluons is not easy. It is the goal of the highest energy heavy ion collisions that are being produced at the RHIC and that will be studied by the ALICE experiment at the LHC.
By colliding two heavy nuclei at high enough energy, physicists believe that during the brief instants of time when the nuclei overlap, their quark matter will have a temperature high enough to form a plasma. The creation of this funny state of matter can then be detected by observing its decay signatures, which involve a number of peculiar characteristics.
In the paper by Miskowiec these experimental details are not discussed. Instead, one is asked to perform a gedanken experiment by imagining a chunk of plasma extended into a thin, enormous ring, with a 1000 light years diameter. Let us forget the easy objection that producing such a thing is not a piece of cake, because the paradox obviously requires a good dose of fantasy and just obeying to physical laws.
If you were to cut the ring at one position, Miskowiec argues, the plasma would start to create hadrons - the bound states of the plasma constituents - at the two loose ends, continuing to do so until the ring would completely disappear into a finite number of ordinary particles. But if you were to cut the ring simultaneously at two different ends, separated by light years of distance – “not casually connected”, you might have the plasma hadronize unti the remaining bits have fractional baryon number or non-neutral color charge! (see picture below).

By this reasoning, one is led to believe that baryon number and color charge quantum numbers of hadrons may retain some meaning even inside a plasma of quarks and gluons – that is to say, that the deconfinement phase is not describable as a sea of independent quarks and gluons uncorrelated and free. Otherwise, one would need to buy into some sort of mechanism a’la Einstein-Podolsen-Rosen, whereby the thousand-light-year ring behaves in some coherent way, such that cutting it at one edge collapses its wavefunction everywhere at once. But that seems to allow for superluminal transfer of information, which is hard to acknowledge. Another possibility involves some restraining assumptions on the way the plasma hadronizes, which appear at odds with the current models of the first instants after the big bang.
One nice feature of the paper is that it makes definite predictions, for a change: quoting from the concluding section,
“… the concept of QGP, state of matter with uncorrelated quarks, antiquarks, and gluons, leads to isolated objects with fractional baryon numbers, unless supernuminal signalling is allowed, or, by some mechanism, the hadronization is restricted to the surface of the QGP volume, meaning that e.g. the hadronization in the Early Universe took at least minutes rather than a couple of microseconds. The third, obvious, way of avoiding the paradox is to declare the uncorrelated QGP as non-existent, and to replace it by a state consisting of quark clusters with integer baryon numbers (resonance matter). Both the surface-hadronization and the resonance matter options result in a liquid- rather than a gas-like structure of the matter. This agrees with the hydrodynamical character of the matter created in nuclear collisions at RHIC and, at the same time, indicates that this character will be preserved at higher temperatures.”
As I noted at the start, I am in no position to decide without further study (which I have no time to embark on) on the soundness of the reasoning illustrated in the paper by Miskowiec. Anybody here willing to comment ?