Quantum Physics

Hmmmm... that's pretty cool if it works out in practice. I see the article says there's a patent pending so it's not surprising they're being a bit stingy on details.

It's almost guaranteed that a new method of extraction will have different errors and give different results, so a lot of old dates established by old methods will probably end up being retested (assuming samples still even exit). If it's half as good as the article implies, it'll be revolutionary.

{{Something big and bright has gone boom 200 million light years away!

A massive explosion spotted 200 million light years from Earth has baffled astronomers.
The strange spot, nicknamed 'the cow', is up to 100 times brighter than a supernova and is growing at an incredible rate.
Scientists say the flash is a 9,000°C (16,000°F) cloud of high-energy particles bursting outwards at 12,000 miles (20,000km) per second, but are still unsure what triggered the brilliant blast.
One researcher said 'there hasn't really been another object like this.'
The explosion was captured on by the asteroid-tracking ATLAS telescopes at the Keck Observatory, which sits atop Mauna Kea, a dormant volcano in Hawaii.
Astronomers noted the flash was unusually luminous - between 10 and 100 times brighter than the average supernova - but it was the speed of its appearance that really caught the eye of space experts.
Most celestial explosions take weeks to reach peak brightness, but the distant flash had grown to a dramatic size in just two days.
Teams from around the world trained at least 18 telescopes on the flash in a response that constituted the largest number of reports for any single object on Astronomer's Telegram, according to the site's Editor-in-Chief.
The explosion was so bright it initially appeared to originate from our own galaxy, but observations by a group of Chinese scientists showed the spot was almost 200 million light years away.
Readings from other groups suggested the flash was an explosion of high-energy particles travelling outwards at 12,000 miles (20,000km) per second.
The surface temperature of this cloud could be as high as 9,000°C (16,000°F), according to the observations.
'We're not sure yet what it is, but the normal powering mechanism for a supernova is radioactive decay of nickel, and this event is too bright and too fast for that,' Dr Maguire said.
Follow-up observations are ongoing and scientists said they should know more about the object over the next day or two.- Daily Mail


Need to keep an eye on this see what they reckon it is. }}}

That's quite interesting! Have to keep my eye out for more news.

Cool, but I don't think I'd want one in my immediate celestial neighborhood.....

If you find more details, could you please share them?

When it comes to understanding the theory of EVERYTHING this is really cool stuff!
Stand back string theorists. The number theorists are back in the game again!

https://www.wired.com/story/the-peculiar-math-that-could-underlie-the-laws-of-nature/

This spun off several stories, I think because the human subject is so picturesque. I hope it wins out, just seems so much more inevitable than classic string theory.

{{Ok- I tried reading that article but all I can fathom from it is this lass has some onions that can explain why stuff does stuff under certain conditions, maybe. I think I may need some help on this one! }}}

I'll try to give a small taste of what's going on here {{{not my fault if it smells of onion }}}

Have you played with "real numbers" and "imaginary numbers" before? Real numbers include the whole set of all possible numbers that exist in the common sense world we know, and they don't include the square root of -1 (which has a nasty habit of popping out of scientific equations from time to time anyway).  This imaginary unit is usually named i and when you square it you get -1. That's the definition and it's also why it's called "imaginary".

Now it happens that when you drop i into the box of "real numbers", shake it all up by doing every possible addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, and look at what you've got, you've basically added a new imaginary dimension to the familiar number system we all know and love. These are called the "complex numbers" and everything in this box has an "a" part and a "b" part (it can be written in the form a+bi) so you can can graph them by plotting the "real" part on the X-axis and the "imaginary" part on the Y-axis. Do you see how that might give you a way to talk about invisible dimensions?

Now here's where it starts getting interesting. There are TWO imaginary numbers that when squared give you -1 {{ that would be i and -i }} but there is no test to tell one from the other because they're imaginary! You pick one, and that choice defines which is positive and which is negative, but if you had picked the other one, the world you'd create would be exactly identical in every way (this is where sci fi writers start thinking about parallel universes). These sorts of things are called symmetries (literally "measuring the same") and they're fascinating because the tell you a lot about the "shape" of the number field you're farming in.

Now if two dimensions aren't enough for you, there's a tricky way you can fold it on itself and get 4 dimensions (quaternions) which still lets you do addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, and gain even more symmetries (though you lose some other things).

And if even 4 dimensions isn't enough, you can fold it again  and get 8 dimensions which still lets you do your basic addition, subtraction, multiplication and division and gives you even MORE symmetries (though you lose something else. This is the shoes and socks part of the article). These are your oct-onions

HOWEVER, if you're greedy and try to fold it just one more time to get 16 dimensions, you lose all your addition, subtraction, multiplication and division and the whole world as we know it all falls apart.

This imaginary unit is usually named i and when you square it you get -1. That's the definition and it's also why it's called "imaginary".- Dave

{{What is it with you bloody mathematicians?!!! Is it not enough for you that most of us are confused enough with real numbers you have to go making imaginary ones up too?!!!    If that's your game I'm inventing 'buckiroozed' which is the imaginary number which conveys the exact depth of pain and horror you get upon realising your amount of remaining buckie is equal to 1 or less    }}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:  If that's your game I'm inventing 'buckiroozed' which is the imaginary number which conveys the exact depth of pain and horror you get upon realising your amount of remaining buckie is equal to 1 or less    }}

You're welcome to do that Petty, but the universe you'd be creating isn't one I'd be interested in living in....

to add to Dave's explanation - the imaginary/complex numbers cover all the possible solutions of ordinary algebraic equations of one variable.  From here on out I have to assume everyone has had a year of algebra in school.  If not a year of algebra, then just reread Dave's post and don't continue.

If so take for example if  2 = 1 +3x -5x^2  (that's x squared) you can use the quadratic equation you remember from high school to figure out that x = 1.5 + i*1.66 or x = 1.5 - i*1.66

Since the complex numbers (with real and imaginary parts might be called "duornions") are supposed to provide all possible solutions to algebraic equations, I don't really understand where quaternians and octonions come from, but I can abstractly see how they parallel the jump from real numbers to complex numbers.  For some reason you can't go higher than this ... and that's exciting.  Think of the Platonic solids - there's a simple proof that there can only be 5 of them.  It's been said that "God himself could not construct a 6th Platonic solid".  There's a universal limit.   And now we find another universal limit, and it seems to be tied to mathematics used to describe the most fundamental physics we know!

I never like the so-called "standard model" of physics because it seemed too random to me, so I never came to really understand it.  Now there's hope it may not be random.  This could be huge.  String theory provides lots of possibilities, but this octonion stuff could whittle it down.

I don't want to talk trash about the "standard model" because it's done an amazing job empirically, but it sometimes feels more like a huge patchwork quilt that's been regularly stretched or scrunched to fit the latest inconsistency in the data, rather than a complete or even internally consistent model. The farmer in me very much approves, but the mathematician is somewhat appalled

Now if this new oct-onion approach can provide a good, mathematically rigorous "quilting frame" on which the standard model can be stretched, flattened and ironed smooth, it should become much easier to set about properly patching some of the remaining empirical holes.

Mathematics, as everyone who is not imaginary knows, is imaginary, so you fellows (if I can call you fellows) must be imaginary too, according to my logic.  Petty, of course, is NOT imaginary, because he is confused (just like I am) and therefore must exist, because 1 has to exist for 1 to be confused. Therefore, if Dave and Halfy aren’t confused they, therefore, don’t exist. Each of them, to put it succinctly, is an imaginary 1. This is (clearly) what they mean by -1. As in 1 NOT existing. If 1 exists, it is (clearly) a positive. If 1 does NOT exist, this could be said to be a negative, though it is hard to nail a negative unless your nail is imaginary. Here to help!

Orwell wrote: Here to help!

Thanks for clearing that up Orwell! We can always count on you, sometimes.

I think it's safe to say Dave and I don't fully understand what we are talking about either.  We only know enough to judge if a theory is beautiful or not, which for physics goes a long way.  General Relativity and the Standard Model both provide unbelievable accuracy and precision when compared to observation, but one is beautiful and satisfying, the other is not.

The Standard Model was put together piecemeal by committee:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-standard-model-of-physics-at-50/

This will get you closer to what's going on (ignore the video which has little to do with the standard model):

http://theconversation.com/explainer-standard-model-of-particle-physics-2539

This goes deeper (edit: I found a better link):

https://mathisbeautifulanexplanation.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/why-the-standard-model-is-the-ugliest-theory-ever-made/

If you want to see what a non-beautiful theory looks like, you can glance through the 3 page paper that started it all.  Don't try to read it, just look the equations and brief descriptions.  It's clearly cobbled together.

Weinberg Standard Model

Some of the people who helped make it describe the Standard Model as beautiful, but that's not the general consensus.

{{{{ The only part of any of this I can get my buckied head around is what Orwell said- now that seems increasingly likely    }}

halfwise wrote:I think it's safe to say Dave and I don't fully understand what we are talking about either.  

safer words were never spoken

Somebody else is doing the same thing as my intro to quantum mechanics.

https://medium.com/@notaredpanda/the-essence-of-quantum-mechanics-part-1-measurement-and-spin-cec98216c8da

Unfortunately you have to pay for it, though I got it free through my iphone.  I'll let you know if worth it.

EDIT: Naw, he starts getting mathematical right at the start. How many people know what the symbol for a gradient is and know what it means? Not recommended.

{{ So now we know what a Black Hole looks like. Thanks to a stunning combination of the wonders of modern technology and people with very big brains we now know what we have only theorised until this time, what one looks like-

Spoiler:

Opps. Sorry, easy mistake to make    

Spoiler:

Actually maybe it was the first one?         That's nature for you, always reusing patterns!   }}

ITS SAURON'S EYE, oh dear

Google finally got a quantum computer to do a real calculation

https://www.engadget.com/2019-10-23-google-says-its-achieved-quantum-supremacy.html

The comment that "it's not particularly useful yet" was stupid, it should have been "but it's not in production yet". They guy they interviewed made an apt analogy: the Wright Brother's first flight was only 12 seconds long, 'not particularly useful'. This is an equally huge deal.

Fifth forces come and go about every decade since the 1970's. No particular reason to believe it doesn't exist, except there is no particular reason to believe it does. Unless another group finds the same thing it's easier to believe this Hungarian group is messing up somehow.

{{ I think it has been repeated by others now, hence the excitement over it. I still say its just turtles all the way down and more you look more there is, forever. }}