Referring to the Casimir effect, Ethan says that the quantum vacuum does have observational effects. However, although the effects of virtual particles may be real, the particles themselves are not.
He goes on to say that if you apply to the non-vacuum state the same quantum field theory techniques that are used to calculate the quantum vacuum, it will tell you about real, physical particles (and antiparticles) that can pop in-and-out of existence.
I interpret the second statement as implying that the mathematics behind virtual particles is valid even if the particles thenselves are not real.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/05/07/ask-ethan-do-virtual-particles-really-exist/
This topic is a matter of debate, some physicists say virtual particles are real and others that they are not. It's all above my pay grade!
He goes on to say that if you apply to the non-vacuum state the same quantum field theory techniques that are used to calculate the quantum vacuum, it will tell you about real, physical particles (and antiparticles) that can pop in-and-out of existence.
I interpret the second statement as implying that the mathematics behind virtual particles is valid even if the particles thenselves are not real.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/05/07/ask-ethan-do-virtual-particles-really-exist/
This topic is a matter of debate, some physicists say virtual particles are real and others that they are not. It's all above my pay grade!
And yet, that mathematical hocus-pocus is said to have saved particle physics! Here's what Feynman had to say about renormalization:
“It is what I would call a dippy process. Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent.”
To be self-consistent, something has to have all its parts, principles or facts in agreement with each other. For example, the theory of special relativity is mathematically self-consistent.
Feynman was justified decades later when researchers discovered that renormalization wasn’t about infinities at all and that, rather than fretting about infinites, quantum physicists should have focused on connecting tiny with huge.
The full story is given in the link I gave in post #4,389: https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-renormalization-saved-particle-physics-20200917/
“It is what I would call a dippy process. Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent.”
To be self-consistent, something has to have all its parts, principles or facts in agreement with each other. For example, the theory of special relativity is mathematically self-consistent.
Feynman was justified decades later when researchers discovered that renormalization wasn’t about infinities at all and that, rather than fretting about infinites, quantum physicists should have focused on connecting tiny with huge.
The full story is given in the link I gave in post #4,389: https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-renormalization-saved-particle-physics-20200917/
Back to gravity!
Above, I mentioned quantum physicists having to focus on "connecting tiny with huge", and that prompted me to do more googling!
Progress in combining quantum mechanics and gravitational physics is hampered by the fact that we cannot yet perform experiments with masses where both quantum and gravitational effects are relevant.
The heaviest object for which a quantum effect has been observed to date is a large molecule.
The smallest (~100 mg) mass whose gravitational field has been detected is more than a billion billion times heavier.
That illustrates the enormous gap that researchers have to overcome in order to connect tiny to huge and reveal the quantumness of gravity.
I read it here: https://phys.org/news/2024-05-reveals-quantumness-gravity.html
Above, I mentioned quantum physicists having to focus on "connecting tiny with huge", and that prompted me to do more googling!
Progress in combining quantum mechanics and gravitational physics is hampered by the fact that we cannot yet perform experiments with masses where both quantum and gravitational effects are relevant.
The heaviest object for which a quantum effect has been observed to date is a large molecule.
The smallest (~100 mg) mass whose gravitational field has been detected is more than a billion billion times heavier.
That illustrates the enormous gap that researchers have to overcome in order to connect tiny to huge and reveal the quantumness of gravity.
I read it here: https://phys.org/news/2024-05-reveals-quantumness-gravity.html
Here's some 'hot off the press' news about reconciling Einstein’s theory of gravity with the principles of quantum mechanics:
https://scitechdaily.com/photons-at-the-edge-of-physics-unlock-gravitys-quantum-secrets/
Artistic representation of the implemented photonic experiment
The experiment involves using the entanglement of some properties of photons to mimic the gravitational field’s effect on quantum particles.
The idea is to mimic the "gravitational induced entanglement" mentioned in my previous link in post #4,405.
Eventually detecting gravity-mediated entanglement itself would provide evidence that the gravitational field obeys quantum mechanics.
Don't ask me to explain any of this, I'm just following a scent trail!
https://scitechdaily.com/photons-at-the-edge-of-physics-unlock-gravitys-quantum-secrets/
Artistic representation of the implemented photonic experiment
The experiment involves using the entanglement of some properties of photons to mimic the gravitational field’s effect on quantum particles.
The idea is to mimic the "gravitational induced entanglement" mentioned in my previous link in post #4,405.
Eventually detecting gravity-mediated entanglement itself would provide evidence that the gravitational field obeys quantum mechanics.
Don't ask me to explain any of this, I'm just following a scent trail!
"I'm just following a scent trail!"
@Galu, perhaps you are barking up the wrong tree... all looks a bit speculative to me.
Tonight's episode of Nova News drew the usual blank:
Obvious trails there, perhaps I should reduce to 15 seconds exposure. There is a formula says you divide 400 by the focal length in mm for optimum.
I did however get excited about the two obvious double stars here. Left and top right,
https://bestdoubles.wordpress.com/2...-nu-1-and-nu-2-in-bootes-and-corona-borealis/
Alas, both mere optical doubles. But both nu designation, so you heard the nus here first!
Tonight's visual treat is a simulation of Schrodinger's wave functions for different potentials. No wonder the maths is hard!
Notice how when the two rotating particles collide in the harmonic oscillator potential (17 and 30s approx) they create a ghost opposite! What's that about?
https://galileo-unbound.blog/2022/09/04/is-there-a-quantum-trajectory/
I have lots to say about the Lamb Shift too, but will save it for another time, lest our puny brains explode with too much information.
Best, Steve.
@Galu, perhaps you are barking up the wrong tree... all looks a bit speculative to me.
Tonight's episode of Nova News drew the usual blank:
Obvious trails there, perhaps I should reduce to 15 seconds exposure. There is a formula says you divide 400 by the focal length in mm for optimum.
I did however get excited about the two obvious double stars here. Left and top right,
https://bestdoubles.wordpress.com/2...-nu-1-and-nu-2-in-bootes-and-corona-borealis/
Alas, both mere optical doubles. But both nu designation, so you heard the nus here first!
Tonight's visual treat is a simulation of Schrodinger's wave functions for different potentials. No wonder the maths is hard!
Notice how when the two rotating particles collide in the harmonic oscillator potential (17 and 30s approx) they create a ghost opposite! What's that about?
https://galileo-unbound.blog/2022/09/04/is-there-a-quantum-trajectory/
I have lots to say about the Lamb Shift too, but will save it for another time, lest our puny brains explode with too much information.
Best, Steve.
Last edited:
Seems to me if energy and mass are responsible for gravity per Einstein, and time is affected by gravity (or perhaps it’s the other way around according to Matt O’Dowd and Lee Smolin), then because energy is quantised, I’d expect time to be quantised. That being the case, untangling particle interactions at the most fundamental level over time opens up some extraordinarily interesting but difficult problems. Thinking about the ADC analogy and the LSB, events would have to reach a certain energy threshold before time could move forward for the particle. We of course don’t experience it as lumpy or discrete because all these events are integrated over trillions of particle interactions, so it appears smooth. Given the chances of a particle being at the right energy level or not, I’d guess there’d be some stochastic element to the whole process as well.
These are at least in the realm that experiments could be done... I mean, we dont have to involve Andromeda etc... ;-)
A large molecule and 100mg is something I could handle on the kitchen sink...
//
Yes, a neutron star is not composed entirely of neutrons.
This fact was mentioned during last week's The Sky at Night programme.
https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/neutron-star
Matter between the core and the surface forms odd materials that physicists refer to as 'nuclear pasta'.
Here's more about nuclear pasta - a hypothetical material thought to be the strongest known substance in the Universe:
https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/nuclear-pasta
Last edited:
News about missing dark matter. https://lite.cnn.com/2024/06/17/science/black-holes-dark-matter-scn/index.html
A new theory proposes that black holes created soon after beginning are composed of unbalanced numbers of quarks and gluons, before cooling allowed protons and neutrons to be formed in balanced numbers.
A new theory proposes that black holes created soon after beginning are composed of unbalanced numbers of quarks and gluons, before cooling allowed protons and neutrons to be formed in balanced numbers.
indianajo's link refers to "supercharged rhinos".
The 'typical' primordial black holes formed within the first quintillionth of a second following the Big Bang were as massive as an asteroid and as small as an atom.
It is suggested that these primordial black holes may have had company in the form of exponentially smaller black holes, with the mass of a rhino and a size much smaller than a single proton.
The smallest black holes would have swallowed up uncombined quarks and gluons packed with an exotic property known as “colour charge”.
Here's some simplified reading on the topic: https://www.space.com/tiny-black-holes-born-die-one-second-after-big-bang
The 'typical' primordial black holes formed within the first quintillionth of a second following the Big Bang were as massive as an asteroid and as small as an atom.
It is suggested that these primordial black holes may have had company in the form of exponentially smaller black holes, with the mass of a rhino and a size much smaller than a single proton.
The smallest black holes would have swallowed up uncombined quarks and gluons packed with an exotic property known as “colour charge”.
Here's some simplified reading on the topic: https://www.space.com/tiny-black-holes-born-die-one-second-after-big-bang
Last edited:
Well, according to NASA the Nova TCrB should recur by September:
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-fa...global-astronomers-await-rare-nova-explosion/
I have already expressed doubt about this, since my trusted back of a beermat calculation puts it historically at every 80 years, not NASA's 78 year cycle. A debated 1217 sighting, followed by well-documented 1787, 1866 and 1946.
A child of ten can see the long term average is 81 years, (1946-1217)/ 9 = 729 /9 = 81. Even the last 3 come out at 79.5 years. NASA's 78 years for the next is therefore way off in my estimate.
IMO, NASA could learn a bit of mathematics. Google obviously considers them a trusted source, but I don't.
Look at this NASA rubbish about the H-Beta Hydrogen line which immediately raised a Red Flag for me:
I checked the physics and mathematics:
It became clear to me that NASA can't even do sums! Consider Galaxy Q2125-431:
A child of ten can see that the correct recession speed of the Galaxy Q2125-431 from Hydrogen-Beta is 35400.24 km/s, since Hydrogen-Beta is more correctly 4861 Angstroms.
I leave it to the interested student to check my calculation.
Last edited:
Alright, class. Calculators down!
I have found the source of the schoolboy error in NASA's calculations. And I had to read M.Hawkins' stellar paper on Active Galactic Nuclei to do so.
5007 Angstroms is the primary wavelength of doubly ionised Oxygen, often called OIII by spectroscopists. M.Hawkins was clear on this.
Well familiar to any competent astronomer observing interstellar gas clouds such as in Orion, who often use H-Alpha and OIII filters to get rid of them and see the stars and dust better:
You can hoodwink a Physicist, but you never beat a Mathematician.
Best, Steve.
I have found the source of the schoolboy error in NASA's calculations. And I had to read M.Hawkins' stellar paper on Active Galactic Nuclei to do so.
5007 Angstroms is the primary wavelength of doubly ionised Oxygen, often called OIII by spectroscopists. M.Hawkins was clear on this.
Well familiar to any competent astronomer observing interstellar gas clouds such as in Orion, who often use H-Alpha and OIII filters to get rid of them and see the stars and dust better:
You can hoodwink a Physicist, but you never beat a Mathematician.
Best, Steve.
The space.com article locked my computer up so hard I had to turn it off.indianajo's link refers to "supercharged rhinos".
It is suggested that these primordial black holes may have had company in the form of exponentially smaller black holes, with the mass of a rhino and a size much smaller than a single proton.
Here's some simplified reading on the topic: https://www.space.com/tiny-black-holes-born-die-one-second-after-big-bang
Wikipedia says a rhino is an animal that lives in Africa. Wiktionary adds the rhino meaning "money" from the 17th century.
???
Do they mean one ton black holes? or something more specific?
My understanding is that small Black Holes rapidly evaporate by giving off very hard gamma rays, and really don't last long at all.
Larry Niven wrote some science fiction about one the mass of a mountain which was a power source for an advanced race.
You can calculate lifetime versus mass.
The difficult notion is how to make them. If a Black Hole had a Quark colour charge, say Red, it would inevitably attract Blue and Green ones.
So an overall colour charged BH would be as unlikely as an electrically charged one to my simple mind. Which is often a good argument, actually.
system7 1, NASA 0 again tonight! Despite a cloudy sky:
15s, f3.5, 18mm (eff. 27mm on full sensor), ISO 800 DSLR. Tripod mount. Nice shot of Corona Borealis and Bootes IMO.
Good telescope pictures here:
https://www.virtualtelescope.eu/202...-coronae-borealis-to-erupt-what-could-we-see/
With World Moon Day coming up on July 20 next month, I was reminding myself what it was all about:
Anyone who says it was all faked must explain this:
It's still there.
Larry Niven wrote some science fiction about one the mass of a mountain which was a power source for an advanced race.
You can calculate lifetime versus mass.
The difficult notion is how to make them. If a Black Hole had a Quark colour charge, say Red, it would inevitably attract Blue and Green ones.
So an overall colour charged BH would be as unlikely as an electrically charged one to my simple mind. Which is often a good argument, actually.
system7 1, NASA 0 again tonight! Despite a cloudy sky:
15s, f3.5, 18mm (eff. 27mm on full sensor), ISO 800 DSLR. Tripod mount. Nice shot of Corona Borealis and Bootes IMO.
Good telescope pictures here:
https://www.virtualtelescope.eu/202...-coronae-borealis-to-erupt-what-could-we-see/
With World Moon Day coming up on July 20 next month, I was reminding myself what it was all about:
Anyone who says it was all faked must explain this:
It's still there.
Last edited: