Could this win a Nobel prize in Cosmology?

Yadda Yadda never misses a chance to try to convert everybody to ISLAM.

Will it solve the difference in calculations on the expansion of the universe?

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/mysterious-positivity-of-amplituhedron.html

friday, january 02, 2015 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere



Mysterious positivity of the Amplituhedron
Some comments on papers by Susskind; and Arkani-Hamed et al. (twice)

So far, the latest arXiv preprints emerged on December 31st. The paper arXiv:1501.00001 (with the new redundant zero) should be out on Monday.

On the Sylvester day (for Yankees: 1/2 of Europe plus Israel uses this name for New Year's Eve), three hep-th papers were authored or co-authored by very famous physicists. One was by Nima, another one was by Arkani, and the third one was... by Susskind.



Leonard Susskind wrote an essay about the ER-EPR (worhhole-entanglement) correspondence and especially about the interpretation of the GHZ states and quantum teleportation within the paradigm started by Maldacena and Susskind. It's fun to read Lenny's papers but I found the issues in this new paper sort of obvious, so I don't think that there's something new for me to learn here.


Susskind tries to solve some "potential paradoxes" involving entanglement and measurements by different observers in different orders that could lead to inconsistencies if ER-EPR is assumed to hold as well. I find it trivial to see – or trivial to prove – that no such inconsistencies can possibly exist. At the end, the ER-EPR correspondence is just assigning a new, wormhole-like interpretation to some special states in the Hilbert space of two or numerous black holes (or other objects).



Because there is no inconsistency in quantum mechanics, there can't be any inconsistency in the same quantum mechanics presented along with some new names (or illustrations) for some of the basis vectors in the Hilbert space. The real point is that the different "labels" for the different bases of the Hilbert space can't be in conflict with each other because they provide us with complementary, inequivalent, but mutually not contradicting descriptions of the same thing.

In principle, we may assume that we analyze a Hilbert space of two black holes whose microstates may be entangled in any way; or one Einstein-Rosen bridge whose throat may be filled with some arbitrarily entangled matter. There is no way to fully decide which description – which topology – is the right one. Whether the two black holes are connected by a bridge may only be found by the agreement in the infalling observers' observations and the same agreement – correlation – may be guaranteed by entanglement. Moreover, no GR-based observations in the shared black hole interiors may influence other observations by the outside observers because the future of the observers inside ends up in the singularity. The guaranteed death of the people inside the black holes and bridges reduces or eliminates the potential for new contradictions.

That's also why the topological invariants of the spacetime – the number of bridges between black holes, for example – aren't well-defined Hermitian operators (i.e. observables) on the Hilbert space. You must start your description by deciding about your background and its topology, and any physical phenomena may be described within the language you have chosen. I have stated this principle of mine many times and right now, I decided to coin a new term for this principle,
background indifference.
It may sound similar to "background independence" but the content is very different and, to some extent, the opposite thing. The background independence – as used by various, often not really credible, quantum gravity people – means that the theory doesn't assume any background and it creates all backgrounds on equal footings as solutions. These people often fail to see that the background independence is often just a question of the formalism, not a property of the theory, and their proposed theories usually refuse to provide us with any realistic, nearly flat, backgrounds which is why "background independence" is just a way to mask this fatal flaw and sell it as a virtue.
On the other hand, "background indifference" says that even if the Hilbert space and the set of possible phenomena are fixed, you may choose more or less any background you want, and the pre-determined physical phenomena may be expressed using this background, anyway. Any background may be viewed as an excitation of another background – even if their topology seem to be different! The only difference between several backgrounds is that one of them is more "useful" – that it requires less complicated excitations to describe the relevant states.
A way to explain why "background independence" and "background indifference" are morally opposite to each other is to say that "background independence" (or some champions of the term as a matter of dogma) want you to feel guilty whenever you choose a specific background to expand around, in order to describe the physical phenomena. On the other hand, "background indifference" wants you to feel no guilt at all. You are not only allowed to choose a background to describe phenomena – but any choice is just good in principle!

https://neal.fun/size-of-space/

Wal Thornhill: Big Bang – Time to Wipe the Chalkboard Clean | Space News

Dr Becky Smethurst is an astrophysicist researching galaxies and supermassive black holes at Christ Church at the University of Oxford.

14:22 - A crisis in cosmology - the shape, age and content of the Universe -




The current crisis in Cosmology - it just got a lot worse | Night Sky News November 2019

VY Canis Majoris' Inevitable Dramatic Demise as a Supernova

https://geocenter.info/en/monitoring/schumann

Schumann Resonances

Figure 1 - Dependence of factor of merit of the Schumann resonance on the local time.

Figure 2 - Dependence of amplitudes of the Schumann resonance in Hertz on the local time.

Figure 3 - Schumann Resonances

Figure 4 - Dependence of frequencies of the Schumann resonance in hertz on the local time.


Local time is expressed in hours of Tomsk summer standard time (TSST). TSST = UTC + 7 hours.

https://www.universetoday.com/144173/a-fifth-fundamental-force-could-really-exis...

A Fifth Fundamental Force Could Really Exist, But We Haven’t Found It Yet

NOVEMBER 26, 2019 BY BRIAN KOBERLEIN

The universe is governed by four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. These forces drive the motion and behavior of everything we see around us. At least that’s what we think. But over the past several years there’s been increasing evidence of a fifth fundamental force. New research hasn’t discovered this fifth force, but it does show that we still don’t fully understand these cosmic forces.

The fundamental forces are a part of the standard model of particle physics. This model describes all the various quantum particles we observe, such as electrons, protons, antimatter, and such. Quarks, neutrinos and the Higgs boson are all part of the model.

The term “force” in the model is a bit of a misnomer. In the standard model, each force is the result of a type of carrier boson. Photons are the carrier boson for electromagnetism. Gluons are the carrier bosons for the strong, and bosons known as W and Z are for the weak. Gravity isn’t technically part of the standard model, but it’s assumed that quantum gravity has a boson known as the graviton. We still don’t fully understand quantum gravity, but one idea is that gravity can be united with the standard model to produce a grand unified theory (GUT).

Every particle we’ve ever discovered is a part of the standard model. The behavior of these particles matches the model extremely accurately. We have looked for particles beyond the standard model, but so far we have never found any. The standard model is a triumph of scientific understanding. It is the pinnacle of quantum physics.

But we’ve started to learn it has some serious problems.



Particles and interaction bosons of the standard model. Credit: Particle Data Group
To begin with, we now know the standard model can’t combine with gravity in the way that we thought. In the standard model, the fundamental forces “unify” at higher energy levels. Electromagnetism and the weak combine into the electroweak, and the electroweak unifies with the strong to become the electronuclear force. At extremely high energies the electronuclear and gravitational forces should unify. Experiments in particle physics have shown that the unification energies don’t match up.



Observations of galaxies show the distribution of dark matter. Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Switzerland/D.Harvey & NASA/CXC/Durham Univ/R.Massey; Optical & Lensing Map: NASA, ESA, D. Harvey (Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Switzerland) and R. Massey (Durham University, UK)
More problematic is the issue of dark matter. Dark matter was first proposed to explain why stars and gas on the outer edge of a galaxy move faster than predicted by gravity. Either our theory of gravity is somehow wrong, or there must be some invisible (dark) mass in galaxies. Over the past fifty years, the evidence for dark matter has gotten really strong. We’ve observed how dark matter clusters galaxies together, how it is distributed within particular galaxies, and how it behaves. We know it doesn’t interact strongly with regular matter or itself, and it makes up the majority of mass in most galaxies.

But there is no particle in the standard model that could make up dark matter. It’s possible that dark matter could be made of something such as small black holes, but astronomical data doesn’t really support that idea. Dark matter is most likely made of some yet undiscovered particle, one the standard model doesn’t predict.



We don’t understand most of the universe. Credit: Chandra X-ray Observatory
Then there is dark energy. Detailed observations of distant galaxies show that the universe is expanding at an ever-increasing rate. There seems to be some kind of energy driving this process, and we don’t understand how. It could be that this acceleration is the result of the structure of space and time, a kind of cosmological constant that causes the universe to expand. It could be that this is driven by some new force yet to be discovered. Whatever dark energy is, it makes up more than two-thirds of the universe.

All of this points to the fact that the standard model is, at best, incomplete. There are things we are fundamentally missing in the way the universe works. Lots of ideas have been proposed to fix the standard model, from supersymmetry to yet undiscovered quarks, but one idea is that there is a fifth fundamental force. This force would have its own carrier boson(s) as well as new particles beyond the ones we’ve discovered.

This fifth force would also interact with the particles we have observed in subtle ways that contradict the standard model. This brings us to a new paper claiming to have evidence of such an interaction.

Quote:



I keep expecting to see information, in a post, in this thread, attributed to Prof. Sheldon Cooper.

[wink to LIGHT]

Well Mr Light Show.
Let me introduce you to Vonda and her novel 'Superluminal' which was written awhile back.  She's already covered this. 

...there's even a 7th 

Interesting !

Researchers Discover Plants Make Ultrasonic Screams When Stressed or Hurt

Is the earth still flat?

'Atomology' (Etymology) The Original Universal Language: MIAMI 7th Dec: Part FOUR

This happened last Decade while you were watching tell a lie vision

and getting drunk mayhaps .. wakey wakey

Telescope Update: The First “Quantum Teleportation” Between Two Computer Chips Took Place

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-manage-quantum-teleportation-between-com...

Physicists Just Achieved The First-Ever Quantum Teleportation Between Computer Chips

DAVID NIELD31 DEC 2019
As 2019 winds to a close, the journey towards fully realised quantum computing continues: physicists have been able to demonstrate quantum teleportation between two computer chips for the first time.

Put simply, this breakthrough means that information was passed between the chips not by physical electronic connections, but through quantum entanglement – by linking two particles across a gap using the principles of quantum physics.

We don't yet understand everything about quantum entanglement (it's the same phenomenon Albert Einstein famously called "spooky action"), but being able to use it to send information between computer chips is significant, even if so far we're confined to a tightly controlled lab environment.

"We were able to demonstrate a high-quality entanglement link across two chips in the lab, where photons on either chip share a single quantum state," explains quantum physicist Dan Llewellyn from the University of Bristol in the UK.

"Each chip was then fully programmed to perform a range of demonstrations which utilise the entanglement."

Hypothetically, quantum entanglement can work over any distance. Two particles get inextricably linked together, which means looking at one tells us something about the other, wherever it is (in this case, on a separate computer chip).

To achieve their result, the team generated pairs of entangled photons, encoding quantum information in a way that ensured low levels of interference and high levels of accuracy. Up to four qubits – the quantum equivalent of classical computing bits – were linked together.

"The flagship demonstration was a two-chip teleportation experiment, whereby the individual quantum state of a particle is transmitted across the two chips after a quantum measurement is performed," says Llewellyn.

"This measurement utilises the strange behaviour of quantum physics, which simultaneously collapses the entanglement link and transfers the particle state to another particle already on the receiver chip."

The researchers were then able to run experiments in which the fidelity reached 91 percent – as in, almost all the information was accurately transmitted and logged.

Scientists are learning more and more about how quantum entanglement works, but for now it's very hard to control. It's not something you can install inside a laptop: you need a lot of bulky, expensive scientific equipment to get it working.

But the hope is that advances in the lab, such as this one, might one day lead to advances in computing that everyone can take advantage of – super-powerful processing power and a next-level internet with built-in hacking protections.

The low data loss and high stability of the teleportation, as well as the high level of control that the scientists were able to get over their experiments, are all promising signs in terms of follow-up research.

It's also a useful study for efforts to get quantum physics working with the silicon chip (Si-chip) tech used in today's computers, and the complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) techniques used to make those chips.

"In the future, a single Si-chip integration of quantum photonic devices and classical electronic controls will open the door for fully chip-based CMOS-compatible quantum communication and information processing networks," says quantum physicist Jianwei Wang, from Peking University in China.

The research has been published in Nature Physics.