BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


New Developments in Physics.

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Evil Scientist
11:43 / 02.08.06
As a result of a bit of chatter in the Lab Meta Thread I have decided to launch what is intended to be one of several general threads which will act as focal points for people to post information about any new developments they may discover in the various and myriad fields of science.

The hope being that these threads can collect together information regarding discoveries in relatively specific fields in order that we don't have to spend time data-mining which we could be using to discuss stuff. The further hope being that these general threads will act as launching points for more specific threads.

My only suggestion would be that people don't just dump a link down and leave it. Tell us why you found this development interesting, perhaps speculate on how this development or new knowledge can be utilised, ask questions about the bits that you don't quite get.

This one is intended to focus on new discoveries in physics and associated fields. There is, I feel, plenty of scope there for us to play with.

So, to start.

A Guardian feature which challenges current perceptions about the true nature of black holes.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that this kind of theory crops up from time to time. Considering that a lot of our knowledge of space phenomena is based on theory and information gathered by radio telescopes we are at something of a disadvantage in confirming or denying suggestions like this.

As the article says, it is extremely unlikely that this theory is going to overturn current thinking on black holes. Obviously I don't understand the hard science behind this but it seems a bit of a stretch to say that this confirms MECO (Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Object) theory over black holes. Surely all it means is that quasars may not have black holes at their cores?

The MECO wiki is very badly written unless you've got some backing in physics (which I don't). I wonder if anyone could explain why their existence precludes that of conventional black holes?
 
 
grant
18:06 / 02.08.06
I was just reading about this yesterday in New Scientist. The impression I got was that magnetism isn't supposed to escape a black hole, but this thing has a magnetic field, thus isn't a black hole.

That's not exactly what the text I was reading says -- it just says black holes don't *have* a magnetic field.

It also explains why MECOs preclude black holes -- because if atoms do what they'd need to do to create MECOs, then they'd never be able to do what black holes do.

According to the MECO theory, objects in our universe can never actually collapse to form black holes. When an object gets very dense and hot, subatomic particles start popping in and out of existence inside it in huge numbers, producing copious amounts of radiation. Outward pressure from this radiation halts the collapse so the object remains a hot ball of plasma rather than becoming a black hole.
 
 
lekvar
18:25 / 02.08.06
My first thought is that this is going to horribly mess up a good amount of the fiction I loved as a kid.

My second thought is that I'm positive that I've read articles that have conflated black holes and magnetic fields in some fashion or other. Isn't there a magnetic field generated by the polar jets of radiation the (theoretical) black holes emit? Admitedly, I'm no physicist.

Man, I love it when new theories about the nature of the universe emerge!
 
 
lekvar
23:04 / 02.08.06
If it hadn't been for Stephen Hawking's recent concession that information can escape from a black hole, thus altering our understanding of their nature, I would be a lot less likely to accept the MECO model as likely. Why? As I understand it Hawking is responsibe for much of our understanding of how black holes work. If he's got doubts about the viability of his model I'm going to be a little more charitable about competing/alternate theories.
 
 
Evil Scientist
10:46 / 03.08.06
That New Scientist link helped to explain things grant. Thanks for that.

From that article:

The researchers used gravitational lensing to make their close observation of the quasar. This technique exploits rare coincidences that can occur when a galaxy sits directly between a distant object and observers on Earth.

The gravity of the intervening galaxy acts like a lens. As the intervening galaxy's individual stars pass in front of the quasar, this bending varies, making the quasar appear to flicker.

Carefully scrutinising this flickering allowed the researchers to probe fine details of the quasar's structure that are normally far too small to be resolved by even the most powerful telescopes.


Gravitational lensing. That's a marvellous concept. Using a galaxy to gather information about those mysterious distant objects. That's the kind of thing I love to hear about.

Regarding black holes. Their existence (if not their nature) has been confirmed has it not?

Well, let's have a look at wikipedia (rustle rustle clickity-click).

Ooh, the black hole wiki is a rather good read, (in your face MECO wiki!).

It seems that we have a lot of indirect evidence of black holes (such as stars orbiting apparently empty space, etc). But, I suppose obviously, their nature makes it hard to actually "see" one.

I'm curious to know what the suspected supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way galaxy is if it isn't a conventional black hole? Can MECO theory account for that?

I'm off data-mining.
 
 
Henningjohnathan
17:30 / 08.08.06
Recently, I read a very complex article about black hole physics that used the idea that since an object absorbed by a black hole adds to its surface area rather than its volume, that was evidence that the universe on the whole could actually be two-dimensional and the way the "information" is processed gives the illusion of three dimensions.
 
 
Evil Scientist
09:16 / 09.08.06
That sounds interesting. I don't suppose you remember where you read it do you?
 
 
Henningjohnathan
19:35 / 09.08.06
It was in Scientific American but I can't rememember the exact issue.
Here's a link BUT you need to be a subscriber
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AF072-4891-1F0A-97AE80A84189EEDF
 
 
astrojax69
22:02 / 22.08.06
from my staff e-mail news bulletin (i work at a university), news of quantum encryption:



University of New South Wales Eureka Prize for Scientific Research $10,000
Christian Weedbrook, University of Queensland, Dr Thomas Symul, Andrew Lance and
Dr Ping Koy Lam Australian National University


Spooky action guarantees unbreakable quantum code

The cryptography we rely on to protect our online privacy is at risk from quantum computers. But the world of quantum physics may also provide the solution to this threat: harnessing the laws of physics to give unbreakable secure communications.

Researchers at the University of Queensland and the Australian National University have created a new way of encrypting information using quantum physics. In this intensely competitive field, they are the third group in the world to achieve a working demonstration of quantum cryptography. However, their demonstration was faster, simpler and used off-the-shelf components.

This achievement wins Christian Weedbrook, Thomas Symul, Andrew Lance, and Ping Koy Lam, the $10,000 University of New South Wales Eureka Prize for Scientific Research.

It's a return visit for Ping Koy Lam, a 2003 Eureka winner for his work on quantum teleportation.

No one has built a quantum computer, yet. But it's predicted that these computers would run a million times faster than conventional computers. The number-crunching power of these devices would be able to decode the human genome in minutes, and allow much more sophisticated models of climate change. But quantum computers could also crack the mathematically-based codes we rely on for personal and commercial security on the web.

The team's solution is to turn to quantum encryption using quantum entanglement - a strange phenomenon in which two particles can be both linked and separated. It was described by Einstein as 'spooky action at a distance.'

The team use laser beams to generate entangled photons to transmit the information. If anyone attempts to read the information, the very act of reading the information changes the photons used to transmit the message. The change would be detectable. So any attempt at eavesdropping is instantly identified and stopped. Security is guaranteed by the laws of quantum physics. In this quantum world you can't observe something without changing it in the process.

"This is important basic research," says Frank Howarth, Director of the Australian Museum. "It may still be decades from application, but that's often the way with fundamental physics - an idea develops for a few decades and then it changes the world."

The UNSW Eureka Prize for Scientific Research is awarded for outstanding curiosity-driven scientific research, undertaken in Australia by an Australian scientist under the age of 40. It is sponsored by the University of New South Wales.
 
 
Henningjohnathan
14:54 / 28.08.06
The most interesting thing I heard about recently, but isn't that new, is "quantum immortality." It sounds more like a thought experiment designed to debunk infinite parallel universes, but essentially, the idea is that if there are infinite universes than for every event where a person dies, there will be an alternate event where they live in another universe, therefore, there should be at least one universe where that hypothetical person NEVER DIES.

It seems like you could push that to include a universe where no one ever dies.
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
19:38 / 28.08.06
Hmm... I'm not sure. I'd imagine (and Wiki agrees) that certain situations cannot be escaped, be there never so much quantum buggeration. (I'm not sure, though: if quantum uncertainty implies that any particle has a non-zero chance of being *anywhere* at any given time, then an "infinite life" universe is presumably a possibility. I don't think that actually holds, though.) I'd be very surprised if quantum muckery can beat "big" astrophysical problems, like, say, the Sun going nova, or the heat-death of the universe, or whatever.

(I don't see, also, why the possibility of an "infinite life" universe in any way implies that the many-worlds theory is invalid - anyone?)
 
 
Henningjohnathan
14:00 / 29.08.06
I think that the basic idea was that the impossibility of there being a universe where someone lives forever implies that the theory that there are INFINITE parallel universes is logically flawed. Of course, other than the fact that there is no evidence of their existence, it is equally difficult to prove that there are NO alternate universes.
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
14:17 / 29.08.06
I think that the basic idea was that the impossibility of there being a universe where someone lives forever implies that the theory that there are INFINITE parallel universes is logically flawed.

I don't think that follows, though. There are infinities and infinities, after all... it's possible to have an infinite number of universes, and yet to have none of those infinities include one where someone lives forever.

As a rough example (which is probably interestingly flawed in some obscure mathemagical way, but should do for an analogy) try this:

A) We have an infinite number of numbers between 1 and ∞. One of those numbers is 2.
B) We have an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 0. (1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ...). None of those numbers is 2.

Two different sets of infinities, but they don't include the same things*.

That said, I still don't see why the possibility of including a universe where someone lives forever should be considered to debunk anything; it might be an unusual thing to contemplate, but doesn't actually include any counter-argument other than "that sounds silly", argument from personal disbelief or whatever the technical term for it is (odds are there's some posh sounding Greek or Latin for it).

*and both of which are purely mathematical concepts anyway; number is only a logical thing, and so no real paradox is implied.
 
 
Henningjohnathan
16:09 / 29.08.06
That's a very good point. On the other hand, the parallel universe theory is based upon the probable outcomes. For "infinite" universes to exist, there would have to be an infinite number of possible outcomes. Even over the vast period of billions of years and across the space of the entire universe, if no event ever has an infinite number of outcomes, then the number of all possible universes, though unimaginably large, will remain finite.
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
16:46 / 29.08.06
Yes, I agree. I don't know how quantisation works, really, I'm afraid; I'd guess that if both position and momentum are discrete variables and that neither of them have an infinite boundary (that is, neither maximum distance in space nor maximum energy are infinite) then the potential permutations are vast but not infinite, whereas if either of those variables can be infinite (or, indeed, any other variables) then the potential permutations are themselves infinite. I'll read up on it; I don't even know whether asking if position and momentum are discrete is a sensible question!
 
 
Henningjohnathan
20:24 / 29.08.06
That makes sense in a lot of ways, but, to me - it seems much more reasonable to think that whatever outcome occurs collapses all other possible outcomes to zero possibility rather than diverging into alternate universes of any number.

Is there really any empirical evidence that many outcomes occur simultaneously on the quantum level? Is this only mathematically theoretical?
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
10:10 / 30.08.06
So far as I know, there's no evidence for it and no proposed way of finding any; as MWI doesn't predict anything different, it just suggests it all happens at once.

I think the issue is that the SWI is actually more complex (from a certain point of view) than the MWI, as the SWI requires that one outcome be chosen out of gazillions, whereas the MWI just says there are gazillions and doesn't prefer one.
 
 
Quantum
10:28 / 30.08.06
Is there really any empirical evidence that many outcomes occur simultaneously on the quantum level?

What evidence could there be? It's a theory to explain the evidence we have, one of the mainstream interpretations that differs from the Copenhagen interpretation in a few ways "...in particular there is no observation-triggered wavefunction collapse which the Copenhagen interpretation proposes."

So think Schroedinger's cat- in the Copenhagen version until you look in the box the cat is a wavefunction, simultaneously alive and dead, in the Many Worlds it is dead in one world and alive in the other.
The exact form of the quantum dynamics modelled, be it the non-relativistic Schrödinger equation, relativistic quantum field theory or some form of quantum gravity or string theory, does not alter the content of MWI since MWI is a metatheory applicable to all quantum theories and hence to all credible fundamental theories of physics.
 
 
Tsuga
00:07 / 14.09.06
Anyone interested in MECOs might want to recheck the Wikipedia entry, it's been updated a bit since the first post. In fact, the day after the first post in this thread, Abhas Mitra did some of the editing on the page himself. Nearly all over my head, but pretty cool stuff.
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
17:40 / 14.09.06
many universes ideas: here's my (completely unsubstantiated) take on the setup.

first of all, the word "universe" definitely implies that There Can Be Only One. By which I mean that if we find that there are, in fact, more than one, we need to redefine the system represented by "universe" rather than saying "multiple universes" or "multiverse". But then again we didn't change what "atom" meant when we found out they kind of aren't indivisible, so maybe that's just me being pedantic. anyway...

don't think of there being multiple universes. think of the universe as having more than four "dimensions", and one of the new ones is Probability, which I denote axis p. in the "multiple universes" model, the size of the universe is non-zero in p.

rather than believing that the observation of a human being (or, for that matter, a microscope or whatever - see the definition of "observation" ) is capable of changing the entire universe, which seems a bit crazy to me, assume that the observer itself also has a size which is non-zero in p. in other words, you and your mind exist in a fuzzy little patch of p-t space while you are unsure of the result of some quantum action. when the waveform collapses it is not that the universe itself has changed at all, but rather that your size in p-t has collapsed to one location. you, the observer, are now in the "universe" or timeline in which observable X has given value Y, when before you fuzzily existed in the space where X occupied some range of numbers R.

I need to do lots more research into QM before I can put this better (and, no doubt, discover why it's nonsense), but I like it for now. It's related to my even silier idea about events having their own gravity; modeling this in p-t space would show events coalescing like dust forming planets and stars, in order to explain why it feels sometimes that "it never rains but it pours", so to speak.
 
 
grant
14:08 / 27.09.06
New particle oscillates between matter and antimatter.

Scientists of the CDF collaboration at the Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory announced today (September 25, 2006) that they have met the exacting standard to claim discovery of astonishingly rapid transitions between matter and antimatter: 3 trillion oscillations per second.

Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Undersecretary for Science in the U.S. Department of Energy, congratulated the CDF collaboration on the result.

"This remarkable tour de force details with exquisite precision how the antiworld is tied to our everyday realm," Dr. Orbach said. "It is a beautiful example of how, using increasingly sophisticated analysis, one can extract discovery from data from which much less was expected. It is a triumph for Fermilab."

The CDF discovery of the oscillation rate, marking the final chapter in a 20-year search, is immediately significant for two major reasons: reinforcing the validity of the Standard Model, which governs physicists' understanding of the fundamental particles and forces; and narrowing down the possible forms of supersymmetry, a theory proposing that each known particle has its own more massive "super" partner particle.


This has implications I don't fully understand, but it seems to be a Big Deal.

Many different theoretical models of how the universe works at a fundamental level will be now be confronted with the CDF discovery. The currently popular models of supersymmetry, for example, predict a much higher transition frequency than that observed by CDF, and those models will need to be reconsidered.

 
 
grant
14:09 / 27.09.06
Related questions: What are the models of supersymmetry? And what *exactly* is the Standard Model?

And how can I use this stuff to fuel my spaceship?
 
 
sdv (non-human)
18:20 / 28.09.06
grant,

ugh horrible question - go purchase Roland Penrose's the road to reality for the answers which require math......happy reading.

And no you can't fuel your spaceship, because current levels of human technology are simply not worth using.
 
 
Quantum
14:46 / 02.10.06
Grant- The standard model is the current model used for physics.
Developed between 1970 and 1973, it is a quantum field theory, and consistent with both quantum mechanics and special relativity.
It's very very accurate (Mass of W boson- measured as 80.4120±0.0420 GeV, predicted as 80.3900±0.0180 GeV) but the problem is it doesn't address gravity. Thus the heavy work on gravity to get a GUT/ToE.
 
 
astrojax69
01:59 / 04.10.06
Nobel for physics went to the guys who proved the wrinkles in time, the cobe satellite that showed there is dark matter therefore BANG!

i read smoot's book many years ago - a great directed tour through universal sciences to his own work, which now turns out as it read, to be profound indeed! yay them.
 
 
Mirror
15:52 / 19.10.06
Quantum loop gravity proposes a solution to the unification of quantum physics and general relativity, and predicts lots of known particles in the bargain:

NewScientist article and commentary (which can be read without a subscription)

Enter Sundance Bilson-Thompson, a theoretical particle physicist at the University of Adelaide in South Australia. He knew little about quantum gravity when, in 2004, he began studying an old problem from particle physics. Bilson-Thompson was trying to understand the true nature of what physicists think of as the elementary particles - those with no known sub-components. He was perplexed by the plethora of these particles in the standard model, and began wondering just how elementary they really were. As a first step towards answering this question, he dusted off some models developed in the 1970s that postulated the existence of more fundamental entities called preons.

Just as the nuclei of different elements are built from protons and neutrons, these preon models suggest that electrons, quarks, neutrinos and the like are built from smaller, hypothetical particles that carry electric charge and interact with each other. The models eventually ran into trouble, however, because they predicted that preons would have vastly more energy than the particles they were supposed to be part of. This fatal flaw saw the models abandoned, although not entirely forgotten.

Bilson-Thompson took a different tack. Instead of thinking of preons as particles that join together like Lego bricks, he concentrated on how they interact. After all, what we call a particle's properties are really nothing more than shorthand for the way it interacts with everything around it. Perhaps, he thought, he could work out how preons interact, and from that work out what they are.

To do this, Bilson-Thompson abandoned the idea that preons are point-like particles and theorised that they in fact possess length and width, like ribbons that could somehow interact by wrapping around each other. He supposed that these ribbons could cross over and under each other to form a braid when three preons come together to make a particle. Individual ribbons can also twist clockwise or anticlockwise along their length. Each twist, he imagined, would endow the preon with a charge equivalent to one-third of the charge on an electron, and the sign of the charge depends on the direction of the twist.

The simplest braid possible in Bilson-Thompson's model looks like a deformed pretzel and corresponds to an electron neutrino (see Graphic). Flip it over in a mirror and you have its antimatter counterpart, the electron anti-neutrino. Add three clockwise twists and you have something that behaves just like an electron; three anticlockwise twists and you have a positron. Bilson-Thompson's model also produces photons and the W and Z bosons, the particles that carry the electromagnetic and weak forces. In fact, these braided ribbons seem to map out the entire zoo of particles in the standard model.
 
 
grant
03:36 / 13.04.07
Quantum tunneling observed.

So when do I get to phase through walls like Kitty Pryde and whatsished from Heroes?
 
 
jentacular dreams
09:41 / 13.04.07
I'm not sure if this has been posted anywhere already, it's a bit biology meets physics, but on a biochemical level, you kind of already do.
 
 
astrojax69
07:24 / 14.04.07
my god, headmice, that was like trying to read kurdmenistani or something! is there an 'english' version - or can you put it in lay terms? sounds fascinating, but i am so out of depth...

and as for string theory, a couple of books seem to sound the death-knell for this 'theory'... interesting point, particularly, about career paths for those young scientists to whom this has been fed as mother's milk. science meets reality! one must earn a crust.
 
 
Red Concrete
09:40 / 14.04.07
I think you need to be a biochemist, and haev a grasp of physical chemistry / quantum physics also. It amounts to the discovery that enzymes use quantum tunnelling (and other quantum mechanisms) to catalyse their reactions.
 
 
jentacular dreams
14:50 / 14.04.07
Whoops, sorry.

Yeah, RC explains it well. Couple more (plain english) articles discussing it here and here.
 
 
locusSolus
12:40 / 21.04.07
Hmm, anyone have some news on the Bose-Einstein Condensate collapse on spin controlled Rubidium atoms? All I'm finding on the net says it can't be explained with currently existing theories...
 
 
Evil Scientist
10:52 / 09.05.07
Scientists are off to a trench somewhere off the coast of Soctland to hunt for high-energy neutrinos with hydrophones.

Full Guardian article here.

Always nice to be reminded that these kinds of things are smacking into the planet all of the time. With enough force to raise the temperature of the water for ten metres around it (only by a fraction, but it's still damnably impressive).

I'm guessing this trench is relatively quiet, acoustically speaking, in my experience the sea is a bloody noisy place at the best of times.

By the time ultra high energy neutrinos reach Earth, they may have been travelling for billions of years across vast stretches of the universe. Scientists calculate that while a few are likely to strike a single square kilometre of the planet every year, the threat they pose to human health is minimal. "The chance of being struck by one of these things is extremely small. Even if you were unlucky, you'd not feel anything at all because the energy would be dissipated through your body," said David Waters, of the Acoustic Cosmic Ray Neutrino Experiment.

All that way and all that time, and it ends up being annihilated in the sea (or, possibly, the back of my head). Isn't the universe a cool place?
 
 
Quantum
15:01 / 02.07.07
Quantum Loop Theory asserts that pre-big bang there was another universe.
 
 
Evil Scientist
22:25 / 21.01.14
Bump
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply