Category Archives: Quantum Physics

In my 20s, I had a friend who was brilliant, charming, Ivy-educated and rich, heir to a family fortune. I'll call him Gallagher. He could do anything he wanted. He experimented, dabbling in neuroscience, law, philosophy and other fields. But he was so critical, so picky, that he never settled on a career. Nothing was good enough for him. He never found love for the same reason. He also disparaged his friends' choices, so much so that he alienated us. He ended up bitter and alone. At least that's my guess. I haven't spoken to Gallagher in decades.

There is such a thing as being too picky, especially when it comes to things like work, love and nourishment (even the pickiest eater has to eat something). That's the lesson I gleaned from Gallagher. But when it comes to answers to big mysteries, most of us aren't picky enough. We settle on answers for bad reasons, for example, because our parents, priests or professors believe it. We think we need to believe something, but actually we don't. We can, and should, decide that no answers are good enough. We should be agnostics.

Some people confuse agnosticism (not knowing) with apathy (not caring). Take Francis Collins, a geneticist who directs the National Institutes of Health. He is a devout Christian, who believes that Jesus performed miracles, died for our sins and rose from the dead. In his 2006 bestseller The Language of God, Collins calls agnosticism a "cop-out." When I interviewed him, I told him I am an agnostic and objected to "cop-out."

Collins apologized. "That was a put-down that should not apply to earnest agnostics who have considered the evidence and still don't find an answer," he said. "I was reacting to the agnosticism I see in the scientific community, which has not been arrived at by a careful examination of the evidence." I have examined the evidence for Christianity, and I find it unconvincing. I'm not convinced by any scientific creation stories, either, such as those that depict our cosmos as a bubble in an oceanic "multiverse."

People I admire fault me for being too skeptical. One is the late religious philosopher Huston Smith, who called me "convictionally impaired." Another is megapundit Robert Wright, an old friend, with whom I've often argued about evolutionary psychology and Buddhism. Wright once asked me in exasperation, "Don't you believe anything?" Actually, I believe lots of things, for example, that war is bad and should be abolished.

But when it comes to theories about ultimate reality, I'm with Voltaire. "Doubt is not a pleasant condition," Voltaire said, "but certainty is an absurd one." Doubt protects us from dogmatism, which can easily morph into fanaticism and what William James calls a "premature closing of our accounts with reality." Below I defend agnosticism as a stance toward the existence of God, interpretations of quantum mechanics and theories of consciousness. When considering alleged answers to these three riddles, we should be as picky as my old friend Gallagher.

Why do we exist? The answer, according to the major monotheistic religions, including the Catholic faith in which I was raised, is that an all-powerful, supernatural entity created us. This deity loves us, as a human father loves his children, and wants us to behave in a certain way. If we're good, He'll reward us. If we're bad, He'll punish us. (I use the pronoun "He" because most scriptures describe God as male.)

My main objection to this explanation of reality is the problem of evil. A casual glance at human history, and at the world today, reveals enormous suffering and injustice. If God loves us and is omnipotent, why is life so horrific for so many people? A standard response to this question is that God gave us free will; we can choose to be bad as well as good.

"Introducing consciousness into physics undermines its claim to objectivity."

The late, great physicist Steven Weinberg, an atheist, who died in July, slaps down the free will argument in his book Dreams of a Final Theory. Noting that Nazis killed many of his relatives in the Holocaust, Weinberg asks: Did millions of Jews have to die so the Nazis could exercise their free will? That doesn't seem fair. And what about kids who get cancer? Are we supposed to think that cancer cells have free will?

On the other hand, life isn't always hellish. We experience love, friendship, adventure and heartbreaking beauty. Could all this really come from random collisions of particles? Even Weinberg concedes that life sometimes seems "more beautiful than strictly necessary." If the problem of evil prevents me from believing in a loving God, then the problem of beauty keeps me from being an atheist like Weinberg. Hence, agnosticism.

Quantum mechanics is science's most precise, powerful theory of reality. It has predicted countless experiments, spawned countless applications. The trouble is, physicists and philosophers disagree over what it means, that is, what it says about how the world works. Many physicistsmost, probablyadhere to the Copenhagen interpretation, advanced by Danish physicist Niels Bohr. But that is a kind of anti-interpretation, which says physicists should not try to make sense of quantum mechanics; they should "shut up and calculate," as physicist David Mermin once put it.

Philosopher Tim Maudlin deplores this situation. In his 2019 book Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory, he points out that several interpretations of quantum mechanics describe in detail how the world works. These include the GRW model proposed by Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber; the pilot-wave theory of David Bohm; and the many-worlds hypothesis of Hugh Everett. But here's the irony: Maudlin is so scrupulous in pointing out the flaws of these interpretations that he reinforces my skepticism. They all seem hopelessly kludgy and preposterous.

Maudlin does not examine interpretations that recast quantum mechanics as a theory about information. For positive perspectives on information-based interpretations, check out Beyond Weird by journalist Philip Ball and The Ascent of Information by astrobiologist Caleb Scharf. But to my mind, information-based takes on quantum mechanics are even less plausible than the interpretations that Maudlin scrutinizes. The concept of information makes no sense without conscious beings to send, receive and act upon the information.

Introducing consciousness into physics undermines its claim to objectivity. Moreover, as far as we know, consciousness arises only in certain organisms that have existed for a brief period here on Earth. So how can quantum mechanics, if it's a theory of information rather than matter and energy, apply to the entire cosmos since the big bang? Information-based theories of physics seem like a throwback to geocentrism, which assumed the universe revolves around us. Given the problems with all interpretations of quantum mechanics, agnosticism, again, strikes me as a sensible stance.

The debate over consciousness is even more fractious than the debate over quantum mechanics. How does matter make a mind? A few decades ago, a consensus seemed to be emerging. Philosopher Daniel Dennett, in his cockily titled Consciousness Explained, asserted that consciousness clearly emerges from neural processes, such as electrochemical pulses in the brain. Francis Crick and Christof Koch proposed that consciousness is generated by networks of neurons oscillating in synchrony.

Gradually, this consensus collapsed, as empirical evidence for neural theories of consciousness failed to materialize. As I point out in my recent book Mind-Body Problems, there are now a dizzying variety of theories of consciousness. Christof Koch has thrown his weight behind integrated information theory, which holds that consciousness might be a property of all matter, not just brains. This theory suffers from the same problems as information-based theories of quantum mechanics. Theorists such as Roger Penrose, who won last year's Nobel Prize in Physics, have conjectured that quantum effects underpin consciousness, but this theory is even more lacking in evidence than integrated information theory.

Researchers cannot even agree on what form a theory of consciousness should take. Should it be a philosophical treatise? A purely mathematical model? A gigantic algorithm, perhaps based on Bayesian computation? Should it borrow concepts from Buddhism, such as anatta, the doctrine of no self? All of the above? None of the above? Consensus seems farther away than ever. And that's a good thing. We should be open-minded about our minds.

So, what's the difference, if any, between me and Gallagher, my former friend? I like to think it's a matter of style. Gallagher scorned the choices of others. He resembled one of those mean-spirited atheists who revile the faithful for their beliefs. I try not to be dogmatic in my disbelief, and to be sympathetic toward those who, like Francis Collins, have found answers that work for them. Also, I get a kick out of inventive theories of everything, such as John Wheeler's "it from bit" and Freeman Dyson's principle of maximum diversity, even if I can't embrace them.

I'm definitely a skeptic. I doubt we'll ever know whether God exists, what quantum mechanics means, how matter makes mind. These three puzzles, I suspect, are different aspects of a single, impenetrable mystery at the heart of things. But one of the pleasures of agnosticismperhaps the greatest pleasureis that I can keep looking for answers and hoping that a revelation awaits just over the horizon.

This is an opinion and analysis article; the views expressed by theauthor or authorsare not necessarily those ofScientific American.

This article was first published atScientificAmerican.com. ScientificAmerican.com. All rights reserved. Follow Scientific American on Twitter @SciAm and @SciamBlogs. VisitScientificAmerican.comfor the latest in science, health and technology news.

More:

What God, quantum mechanics and consciousness have in common - Livescience.com

Quantum physicists discovered a new phase of matter that can move its own atom without exhibiting energy loss. The phase is called 'two-dimensional supersolid,' the first-ever supersolid matter that exhibits superfluidity, a frictionless feature similar to a liquid.

Supersolid matters are materials that have their atom arranged in a constant and definite pattern. The atoms in the supersolid behave in a significant way compared to other phases of matter.

In addition, the atoms in this type of phase have energy flowing thoroughly in a continuous pattern even though they are keeping still and steady in their positions.

Atoms in the supersolids are seemingly impossible to create, similar with their jumps to a different state of phase compared to the regular phases of matter.

The weird atomic compositions have been a topic for development, and various cases have been conducted since the 1950s to produce such unusual phases. Since the proposal of the new matter began, studies that followed agreed that supersolids are indeed possible to exist.

(Photo: PantheraLeo1359531 / WikiCommons)

Supersolids, according to the study, were formed theoretically into 2D materials by utilizing lasers and super-chilled glasses. By creating the supersolid model, the experts will understand more about the new phase of matter that is so bizarre yet might actually be normal.

Among the interests of the scientists was to see how the 2D supersolids will react to an external force applied to them. The key expectation of the experts is that the 2D supersolid could rotate its internal composition, creating a vortex or tiny whirlpools.

Innsbruck University's Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information expert and lead author of the study Matthew Norcia said in an interview with Live Sciencethat many things are expected to be produced by the 2D supersolids.

The development of the new matter phase could be the gateway to acquiring new data from rotational oscillation and the vortices that could occur inside the 2D object perpetually as opposed to a 1D structure.

ALSO READ: Experts Developed New Approach To Observe How Ions Get Missing Electrons During Solid Material Penetration

The supersolid construction required the team to utilize a set of numerous dysprosium-164atoms and suspend it within optical tweezers. This process allowed the experts to decrease the temperature of the atoms down to 273.15 degrees Celsius with the help of the laser-cooling technique.

Lasers usually catalyze a target object to increase its temperature and make it significantly hotter. However, if the laser photons or beams are to travel in the opposite direction and will target a moving cluster of gas particles, it will result in a gradual cooling effect. The cooling method was then 'loosened' after the laser reached its maximum limit for a few dysprosium atoms to repel and escape.

Evaporative cooling was then observed after the first segment of the experiment due to the warmer particles moving more erratically as opposed to the cooler atoms.With that said, the super-cooled atoms resulted in the new phase of matter in absolute zero called the Bose-Einstein condensate into a 2D supersolid structure.

The findings from the supersolid matter's examination were published in the journal Nature, titled "Two-dimensional Supersolidity in a Dipolar Quantum Gas."

RELATED ARTICLE: A Day in the Life of a Quantum Engineer: Scientist Explains Perspective on Weirdest Field of Science, Quantum Mechanics

Check out more news and information on Physicsin Science Times.

Link:

New Phase of Matter: 'Two Dimensional Supersolid' Discovered in Quantum Physics for the First Time - Science Times

The rarefied world of high-level physics conferences is usually inaccessible to scientific laypeople. Meetings are by invitation and conducted in jargon that few nonexperts understand. We learn in Jeffrey Orens book The Soul of Genius: Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, and the Meeting That Changed the Course of Science that such gatherings can be disappointing, no matter how brilliant the invitees are. The First Solvay Conference in Physics, in Brussels in October 1911, accomplished far less than its organizers envisioned, making Orens subtitle something of a mystery.

The conference was called in the hope of making significant progress toward settling an argument that was raging in the physics world: the debate between the classic Newtonian physics and the new quantum physics, a view of the subatomic world in which light could be thought of as traveling either in waves or as particles called quanta. At many scientific meetings, paper presentations follow one another with only brief intervals between for comments and questions. This conference, by contrast, provided ample time for discussion. It was a remarkable opportunity for the most influential people in physics and chemistry to meet in person, but they made little headway in resolving the debate. According to one attendee, Albert Einstein, Nothing positive has come out of it.

But on a personal level for Einstein, the occasion was not without consequence, for the First Solvay Conference allowed the elite of physics and chemistry to make his acquaintance. Orens calls it Einsteins debutante ball. A second positive outcome was the friendship that began there for Einstein and Marie Curie. Sadly, near the close of the meeting, the press in France published reports of Curies affair with a younger married physicist, Paul Langevin, her late husbands assistant. The news might have raised little interest had Curie been a man, but it caused an onslaught of condemnation, severely damaged her personal and professional reputation, and threatened her second Nobel Prize. The issue is familiar today: Should a failure to live up to current standards of morality diminish appreciation for professional achievements?

Orens is not an academic scientist but a former chemical engineer and business executive with the chemical company Solvay. Curious about wall-size photographs of Solvay conferences in the reception areas and hallways of many Solvay offices, Orens became particularly interested in the first of these meetings. The names of some who gathered in 1911 in the Grand Hotel Metropole in Brussels are familiar for their groundbreaking work in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Not only Einstein and Curie but also Max Planck, Ernest Rutherford, J.H. Jeans and Henri Poincar were there. Nine participants had won or would win Nobel Prizes. Orens approach to the lives and work of the attendees, through the story of this conference, is unusual and well conceived. His account revisits what is certainly one of the most exciting, turbulent periods in the history of science and better acquaints us with people who played significant roles in this drama.

Curie was the only woman among the participants. Her story, beginning in Poland in a century when scientific education for women there could be had only clandestinely, is a harsh reminder of the obstacles facing women in science in her era. Her husband, Pierre Curie, refused the 1903 Nobel Prize for research on radiation until his wife was included in the honor. It was assumed that a woman could have assisted a man but surely not worked as an equal or leader. In America, Curie would become more famous for overcoming such prejudices than for her science. Touring the States in 1921, she was disappointed that only one of the planned celebratory events included meeting another scientist.

In his treatment of Einstein, Orens discusses a claim that science historians have almost unanimously dismissed that it was Einsteins first wife, Mileva, who developed the theory of special relativity. In a book much concerned with lack of recognition for women, Orens careful assessment of her minor contribution is appropriate. The cold correspondence that ended Einsteins marriage to Mileva reveals a less-attractive person than we prefer to think him. Otherwise, Orens describes a kind man who defended Curie when few did, an astonishing mind and a fervent advocate for internationalism in science.

Less known than the attendees at the First Solvay Conference is Ernest Solvay himself, the Belgian businessman and self-taught scientist who paid for the meeting. Solvay had been thinking since 1858 about matter and energy, speculating that one of these elements is only a transformation of the other.

Lacking formal training in theoretical physics, Solvay was not equipped to argue decisively, as Einstein would, that this idea is correct. Instead, he devoted his scientific acumen to developing an improved method of producing industrial soda. He amassed a fortune.

It was German physicist Walther Nernst who in 1910 suggested that Solvay fund a gathering where the worlds top physicists could discuss Solvays ideas. Nernst knew that they would discuss much more than what Solvay would offer in his opening talk and material sent out ahead of time. He anticipated a productive albeit argumentative discussion of the classic physics vs. quantum physics problem. Argumentative it was. Conclusive it was not.

The Solvay Conference of 1911 may have fallen short of changing the course of science, but it initiated more than a century of Solvay support for conferences, scientific institutes and science programs. While Nobel Prizes celebrate discoveries already made and work already done, Solvay funding focuses on the future, supporting scientists on the cusp of making such discoveries.

See original here:

The conference that brought together Marie Curie and Albert Einstein - Frederick News Post

Passed away on 21st August 1995

With a million stars as a blanket, the boy was only able to marvel at the amazing beauty of the celestial objects twinkling far beyond his reach. He would have stood all alone at the sea's edge where the earth meets the heavens and happily measured the limitlessness of the ocean. In spite of his ignorance of the forces of nature that encompass the very meaning of his existence here on earth, he would often gaze up at the stars and pray: "Oh God, may I be like Newton!"

We are just elated and inspired at how even dwarf stars look brighter when he would just sit down and begin to passionately present his theories that cover everything from black holes to quantum physics to every possible theory that talks science.

Born to a Tamil-Brahmin family, Chandrashekhar father's was a deputy Auditor General of Northwestern Railways in Lahore. The family later moved to Allahabad in 1916 and finally settled in Madras in 1918. Even though he was homeschooled for most of his early education, he went to school for three years and later graduated from the Presidency College of Madras (now Chennai) with a BSc. Degree in Physics.

He wrote his first paper on "The Compton Scattering and the New Statistics", which analyses the collision between radiation quanta and an electron gas, and is well-received by his peers.

For always being one of the distinguished students when it came to academics, he was awarded a scholarship from the Government of India to study in the United Kingdom. Despite his father's wish for him to join the Indian Civil Service, he pursued a career in scientific research after realizing this opportunity. Certainly, he then relocated to Britain and was admitted to Cambridge University.

During his time in England, he investigated in depth the degenerated electron gas found in dwarf stars, under the guidance of one of the internationally renowned professors at his university, R.H. Fowler.

He applied Einstein's theory to solve this astronomy problem and provided an explanation for why dwarf stars, upon running out of hydrogen, become unstable and explode inside. This work came to be known as The Chandrasekhar Limit. Further, it led to the concept of supernovas, neutron stars, and black holes, as well as the idea of massive stars going through evolutionary stages.

As a result of his growing fascination with the universe, he received both a PhD. Degree and a bronze medal from Cambridge in 1933. Being the second fellow from India to be granted the Prize Fellowship of Trinity College, he was following in the line after Srinivasa Ramanuja. This being the case, it is no wonder that he is the nephew of famous Indian physicist Sir CV Raman.

After starting his career, he joined the Chicago University faculty as an assistant professor of astrophysics. While he continued to uncover more theories from an extended world, he was always driven to explore the universe with his theories and explanations. He published books like Principles of Stellar Dynamics, Truth and Beauty: Aesthetics and Motivation in Science, and Newton's Principia for the Common Reader; these are just a few of the many works apart from his research career.

"Science is a perception of the world around us. Science is a place where what you find in nature pleases you." - Subrahmanyan Chandrashekhar

Among numerous laurels, his work possessed the same lustre and brightness as that of a north pole star. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983 for his outstanding contribution to astrophysics, as well as Padma Vibhushan in 1968.

Theoretically, Chandrashekhar's theories were critical and even caused controversies but because his work was supported by sound calculations, deeply researched, and years of development, it was always the case that all other alternative theories went down against him. He was an atheist who was distant from any cosmic theory, however, when it came to anything that included science, he was a generous, sincere, and substantial person.

Having spent his entire life studying space theories, Chandrashekhar passed away at the age of 84. Today it is this work that continues to inspire many admirers who look up to the sky and count their dreams since every contribution of his holds a significant account in scientific research.

Four years after his death, NASA launched Chandra X-ray Observatory, one of its four "Great Observatories" and named it in honour of the legend.

This story was first published in ThisDay.app.

Go here to read the rest:

The sky isn't the limit, Chandrashekhar limit is! - Hindustan Times

Photo Credit: UCSB

Since receiving a $25 million grant in 2019 to become the first National Science Foundation (NSF) Quantum Foundry, UC Santa Barbara researchers affiliated with the foundry have been working to develop materials that can enable quantum informationbased technologies for such applications as quantum computing, communications, sensing, and simulation.

They may have done it.

In a new paper, published in the journal Nature Materials, foundry co-director and UCSB materials professor Stephen Wilson, and multiple co-authors, including key collaborators at Princeton University, study a new material developed in the Quantum Foundry as a candidate superconductor a material in which electrical resistance disappears and magnetic fields are expelled that could be useful in future quantum computation.

A previous paper published by Wilsons group in the journal Physical Review Letters and featured in Physics magazine described a new material, cesium vanadium antimonide (CsV3Sb5), that exhibits a surprising mixture of characteristics involving a self-organized patterning of charge intertwined with a superconducting state. The discovery was made by Elings Postdoctoral Fellow Brenden R. Ortiz. As it turns out, Wilson said, those characteristics are shared by a number of related materials, including RbV3Sb5 and KV3Sb5, the latter (a mixture of potassium, vanadium and antimony) being the subject of this most recent paper, titled Discovery of unconventional chiral charge order in kagome superconductor KV3Sb5.

Stephen Wilson. Credit: Spencer Bruttig

Materials in this group of compounds, Wilson noted, are predicted to host interesting charge density wave physics [that is, their electrons self-organize into a non-uniform pattern across the metal sites in the compound]. The peculiar nature of this self-organized patterning of electrons is the focus of the current work.

This predicted charge density wave state and other exotic physics stem from the network of vanadium (V) ions inside these materials, which form a corner-sharing network of triangles known as a kagome lattice. KV3Sb5 was discovered to be a rare metal built from kagome lattice planes, one that also superconducts. Some of the materials other characteristics led researchers to speculate that charges in it may form tiny loops of current that create local magnetic fields.

Materials scientists and physicists have long predicted that a material could be made that would exhibit a type of charge density wave order that breaks what is called time reversal symmetry. That means that it has a magnetic moment, or a field, associated with it, Wilson said. You can imagine that there are certain patterns on the kagome lattice where the charge is moving around in a little loop. That loop is like a current loop, and it will give you a magnetic field. Such a state would be a new electronic state of matter and would have important consequences for the underlying unconventional superconductivity.

The role of Wilsons group was to make the material and characterize its bulk properties. The Princeton team then used high-resolution scanning tunnelling microscopy (STM) to identify what they believe are the signatures of such a state, which, Wilson said are also hypothesized to exist in other anomalous superconductors, such as those that superconduct at high temperature, though it has not been definitively shown.

STM works byscanninga very sharp metal wire tip over a surface. By bringing the tip extremely close to the surface and applying an electrical voltage to the tip or to the sample, the surface can be imaged down to the scale of resolving individual atoms and where the electrons group. In the paper the researchers describe seeing and analyzing a pattern of order in the electronic charge, which changes as a magnetic field is applied. This coupling to an external magnetic field suggests a charge density wave state that creates its own magnetic field.

This is exactly the kind of work for which the Quantum Foundry was established. The foundrys contribution is important, Wilson said. It has played a leading role in developing these materials, and foundry researchers discovered superconductivity in them and then found signatures indicating that they may possess a charge density wave. Now, the materials are being studied worldwide, because they have various aspects that are of interest to many different communities.

They are of interest, for instance, to people in quantum information as potential topological superconductors, he continued. They are of interest to people who study new physics in topological metals, because they potentially host interesting correlation effects, defined as the electrons interacting with one another, and that is potentially what provides the genesis of this charge density wave state. And theyre of interest to people who are pursuing high-temperature superconductivity, because they have elements that seem to link them to some of the features seen in those materials, even though KV3Sb5 superconducts at a fairly low temperature.

If KV3Sb5 turns out to be what it is suspected of being, it could be used to make a topological qubit useful in quantum information applications. For instance, Wilson said, In making a topological computer, one wants to make qubits whose performance is enhanced by the symmetries in the material, meaning that they dont tend to decohere [decoherence of fleeting entangled quantum states being a major obstacle in quantum computing] and therefore have a diminished need for conventional error correction.

There are only certain kinds of states you can find that can serve as a topological qubit, and a topological superconductor is expected to host one, he added. Such materials are rare. This system may be of interest for that, but its far from confirmed, and its hard to confirm whether it is or not. There is a lot left to be done in understanding this new class of superconductors.

Reference: Unconventional chiral charge order in kagome superconductor KV3Sb5 by Yu-Xiao Jiang, Jia-Xin Yin, M. Michael Denner, Nana Shumiya, Brenden R. Ortiz, Gang Xu, Zurab Guguchia, Junyi He, Md Shafayat Hossain, Xiaoxiong Liu, Jacob Ruff, Linus Kautzsch, Songtian S. Zhang, Guoqing Chang, Ilya Belopolski, Qi Zhang, Tyler A. Cochran, Daniel Multer, Maksim Litskevich, Zi-Jia Cheng, Xian P. Yang, Ziqiang Wang, Ronny Thomale, Titus Neupert, Stephen D. Wilson and M. Zahid Hasan, 10 June 2021, Nature Materials.DOI: 10.1038/s41563-021-01034-y

Originally posted here:

Researchers Around the World Are Buzzing About a Candidate Superconductor Created at Quantum Foundry - SciTechDaily

The W particle may have been found Science News, August 21, 1971

Physicists distinguish four different kinds of force by which objects in the universe act upon each other: the strong nuclear force, the weak force, electromagnetism and gravity. The developed theory of particle physics outfits each force with a so-called intermediate particle. Now, from an abandoned silver mine at Park City, Utah, comes strong evidence of the existence of the weak-force quantum, known as the W particle.

The strong evidence for this W particle, or W boson, fell apart under additional scrutiny. Physicists with CERN near Geneva finally caught the boson about a decade later (SN: 2/5/83, p. 84). Besides helping mediate the weak force, which governs certain types of radioactive decay, the W boson has also helped scientists catch the Higgs boson (SN: 7/28/12, p. 5). Weighing the W boson narrowed down the Higgs mass range, making the Higgs easier to look for. Physicists continue unraveling W boson mysteries, such as how the particles form and whether more massive versions exist.

Link:

50 years ago, physicists thought they found the W boson. They hadnt - Science News Magazine

Need a breakdown for Netflixs upcoming South Korean series Squid Game? Here is everything we know so far including release date, cast and plot!

Netflix continues to provide fans around the world with excellent Korean content, with the streaming platform revealing more details about their upcoming original series, Squid Game.

The series appears to be a gruesome mixture of the hit 2020 J-drama Alice in Borderland and iconic anime series like Deadman Wonderland and Darwins Game.

With the teaser trailer going viral on social media, we breakdown everything you need to know about the suspense drama, Squid Game.

BridTV

4247

Squid Game | Official Teaser | Netflix

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/siNr47WV0Wk/hqdefault.jpg

846209

846209

center

13872

Squid Game, also known as Round Six, is an upcoming South Korean action-adventure series, created and distributed by Netflix.

The title references a popular childrens game in Korea, a variation of tag that uses a squid-shaped board.

In the Netflix series, 456 people are invited to play a mysterious competition called Squid Game for a cash prize of 45.6 billion (around $40 million).

The players are considered to be failures in life with some having an excessive amount of debt, but there is more to this Squid Game than meets the eye.

What looks like childish challenges turns out to be a deadly survival tournament; lose any of the daily games and the players are killed off until one final player is left.

Who will be the last player standing and who are the mysterious tracksuit-wearing people running the Squid Game?

There will be a total of eight episodes in Squid Game season 1, each with a runtime of approximately 50 minutes.

As the series is a Netflix original title, fans can expect the entire first season to be released on September 17th.

There had been concerns that the launch of Squid Game would be pushed back towards the end of 2021 or even 2022, following the suspension of filming for the coronavirus pandemic.

Although the progress of the production will be affected depending on the future situation, we will decide to resume by taking safety of creators and producers as a top priority. Netflix, via Han Cinema.

Squid Game will feature a superb cast of fan favourite actors and actresses from South Korea, with the two leading roles being Lee Jung-Jae and Park Hae-Soo.

Lee Jung-Jae is an actor and model from Seoul, who is best known for his performances in The Face Reader (2013), New World (2013), Assassination (2015) and Deliver Us from Evil (2020).

Squid Game will be the 48-year-old actors debut on a Netflix original title, where he will be playing Ki-Hoon: a man who is fired from his job and loses everything, before taking part in the tournament.

Alongside Jung-Jae in the leading roles is Park Hae-Soo, who fans may recognise from Prison Playbook (2017), By Quantum Physics: A Nightlife Venture (2019) and Time to Hunt (2020).

Hae-Soo is arguably a Netflix veteran by this point, appearing in multiple titles on the streaming platform including the aforementioned Time to Hunt, Persona (2019), Racket Boys (2021).

He will also appear in three upcoming Netflix titles; Suriname, Money Heist and Yacha.

Other confirmed cast members for Squid Game includes:

This article will be updated as soon as more information on Squid Game is revealed.

By Tom Llewellyn [emailprotected]

In other news, How Many Episodes in The Chair? Will Season 2 Follow on Netflix?

Read more:

Squid Game: Everything you need to know about Netflixs upcoming K-drama! - HITC - Football, Gaming, Movies, TV, Music

In my 20s, I had a friend who was brilliant, charming, Ivy-educated and rich, heir to a family fortune. Ill call him Gallagher. He could do anything he wanted. He experimented, dabbling in neuroscience, law, philosophy and other fields. But he was so critical, so picky, that he never settled on a career. Nothing was good enough for him. He never found love for the same reason. He also disparaged his friends choices, so much so that he alienated us. He ended up bitter and alone. At least thats my guess. I havent spoken to Gallagher in decades.

There is such a thing as being too picky, especially when it comes to things like work, love and nourishment (even the pickiest eater has to eat something). Thats the lesson I gleaned from Gallagher. But when it comes to answers to big mysteries, most of us arent picky enough. We settle on answers for bad reasons, for example, because our parents, priests or professors believe it. We think we need to believe something, but actually we dont. We can, and should, decide that no answers are good enough. We should be agnostics.

Some people confuse agnosticism (not knowing) with apathy (not caring). Take Francis Collins, a geneticist who directs the National Institutes of Health. He is a devout Christian, who believes that Jesus performed miracles, died for our sins and rose from the dead. In his 2006 bestseller The Language of God, Collins calls agnosticism a cop-out. When I interviewed him, I told him I am an agnostic and objected to cop-out.

Collins apologized. That was a put-down that should not apply to earnest agnostics who have considered the evidence and still dont find an answer, he said. I was reacting to the agnosticism I see in the scientific community, which has not been arrived at by a careful examination of the evidence. I have examined the evidence for Christianity, and I find it unconvincing. Im not convinced by any scientific creation stories, either, such as those that depict our cosmos as a bubble in an oceanic multiverse.

People I admire fault me for being too skeptical. One is the late religious philosopher Huston Smith, who called me convictionally impaired. Another is megapundit Robert Wright, an old friend, with whom Ive often argued about evolutionary psychology and Buddhism. Wright once asked me in exasperation, Dont you believe anything? Actually, I believe lots of things, for example, that war is bad and should be abolished.

But when it comes to theories about ultimate reality, Im with Voltaire. Doubt is not a pleasant condition, Voltaire said, but certainty is an absurd one. Doubt protects us from dogmatism, which can easily morph into fanaticism and what William James calls a premature closing of our accounts with reality. Below I defend agnosticism as a stance toward the existence of God, interpretations of quantum mechanics and theories of consciousness. When considering alleged answers to these three riddles, we should be as picky as my old friend Gallagher.

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

Why do we exist? The answer, according to the major monotheistic religions, including the Catholic faith in which I was raised, is that an all-powerful, supernatural entity created us. This deity loves us, as a human father loves his children, and wants us to behave in a certain way. If were good, Hell reward us. If were bad, Hell punish us. (I use the pronoun He because most scriptures describe God as male.)

My main objection to this explanation of reality is the problem of evil. A casual glance at human history, and at the world today, reveals enormous suffering and injustice. If God loves us and is omnipotent, why is life so horrific for so many people? A standard response to this question is that God gave us free will; we can choose to be bad as well as good.

The late, great physicist Steven Weinberg, an atheist, who died in July, slaps down the free will argument in his book Dreams of a Final Theory. Noting that Nazis killed many of his relatives in the Holocaust, Weinberg asks: Did millions of Jews have to die so the Nazis could exercise their free will? That doesnt seem fair. And what about kids who get cancer? Are we supposed to think that cancer cells have free will?

On the other hand, life isnt always hellish. We experience love, friendship, adventure and heartbreaking beauty. Could all this really come from random collisions of particles? Even Weinberg concedes that life sometimes seems more beautiful than strictly necessary. If the problem of evil prevents me from believing in a loving God, then the problem of beauty keeps me from being an atheist like Weinberg. Hence, agnosticism.

THE PROBLEM OF INFORMATION

Quantum mechanics is sciences most precise, powerful theory of reality. It has predicted countless experiments, spawned countless applications. The trouble is, physicists and philosophers disagree over what it means, that is, what it says about how the world works. Many physicistsmost, probablyadhere to the Copenhagen interpretation, advanced by Danish physicist Niels Bohr. But that is a kind of anti-interpretation, which says physicists should not try to make sense of quantum mechanics; they should shut up and calculate, as physicist David Mermin once put it.

Philosopher Tim Maudlin deplores this situation. In his 2019 book Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory, he points out that several interpretations of quantum mechanics describe in detail how the world works. These include the GRW model proposed by Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber; the pilot-wave theory of David Bohm; and the many-worlds hypothesis of Hugh Everett. But heres the irony: Maudlin is so scrupulous in pointing out the flaws of these interpretations that he reinforces my skepticism. They all seem hopelessly kludgy and preposterous.

Maudlin does not examine interpretations that recast quantum mechanics as a theory about information. For positive perspectives on information-based interpretations, check out Beyond Weird by journalist Philip Ball and The Ascent of Information by astrobiologist Caleb Scharf. But to my mind, information-based takes on quantum mechanics are even less plausible than the interpretations that Maudlin scrutinizes. The concept of information makes no sense without conscious beings to send, receive and act upon the information.

Introducing consciousness into physics undermines its claim to objectivity. Moreover, as far as we know, consciousness arises only in certain organisms that have existed for a brief period here on Earth. So how can quantum mechanics, if its a theory of information rather than matter and energy, apply to the entire cosmos since the big bang? Information-based theories of physics seem like a throwback to geocentrism, which assumed the universe revolves around us. Given the problems with all interpretations of quantum mechanics, agnosticism, again, strikes me as a sensible stance.

MIND-BODY PROBLEMS

The debate over consciousness is even more fractious than the debate over quantum mechanics. How does matter make a mind? A few decades ago, a consensus seemed to be emerging. Philosopher Daniel Dennett, in his cockily titled Consciousness Explained, asserted that consciousness clearly emerges from neural processes, such as electrochemical pulses in the brain. Francis Crick and Christof Koch proposed that consciousness is generated by networks of neurons oscillating in synchrony.

Gradually, this consensus collapsed, as empirical evidence for neural theories of consciousness failed to materialize. As I point out in my recent book Mind-Body Problems, there are now a dizzying variety of theories of consciousness. Christof Koch has thrown his weight behind integrated information theory, which holds that consciousness might be a property of all matter, not just brains. This theory suffers from the same problems as information-based theories of quantum mechanics. Theorists such as Roger Penrose, who won last years Nobel Prize in Physics, have conjectured that quantum effects underpin consciousness, but this theory is even more lacking in evidence than integrated information theory.

Researchers cannot even agree on what form a theory of consciousness should take. Should it be a philosophical treatise? A purely mathematical model? A gigantic algorithm, perhaps based on Bayesian computation? Should it borrow concepts from Buddhism, such as anatta, the doctrine of no self? All of the above? None of the above? Consensus seems farther away than ever. And thats a good thing. We should be open-minded about our minds.

So, whats the difference, if any, between me and Gallagher, my former friend? I like to think its a matter of style. Gallagher scorned the choices of others. He resembled one of those mean-spirited atheists who revile the faithful for their beliefs. I try not to be dogmatic in my disbelief, and to be sympathetic toward those who, like Francis Collins, have found answers that work for them. Also, I get a kick out of inventive theories of everything, such as John Wheelers it from bit and Freeman Dysons principle of maximum diversity, even if I cant embrace them.

Im definitely a skeptic. I doubt well ever know whether God exists, what quantum mechanics means, how matter makes mind. These three puzzles, I suspect, are different aspects of a single, impenetrable mystery at the heart of things. But one of the pleasures of agnosticismperhaps the greatest pleasureis that I can keep looking for answers and hoping that a revelation awaits just over the horizon.

This is an opinion and analysis article; the views expressed by theauthor or authorsare not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Further Reading:

I air my agnostic outlook in my two most recent books, Mind-Body Problems, available for free online, and Pay Attention: Sex, Death, and Science.

See also my podcast Mind-Body Problems, where I talk to experts, including several mentioned above, about God, quantum mechanics and consciousness.

Read more from the original source:

What God, Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Have in Common - Scientific American

National Physical Laboratory expert and University of Strathclyde UKRI Future Leaders member Alessandro Rossi shares his experiences in the quantum physics industry to Natureand how mystifying yet scientific his works are under the pressure of pure precision and physical disciplines.

(Photo: Alecsandra Dragoi for Nature)

Rossi has two ongoing commitments in the field of quantum mechanics. Currently, the expert is working at London's National Physical Laboratory or NPL, where he focuses on the studies revolving around one of the most delicate regions in quantum-physics principles, quantum meteorology.

The work Rossi does under quantum meteorology heavily involves measurement, and one partner he could rely on during working hours is the dilution refrigerator. The massive cooling device has many applications, including cooling a specific semiconductor down to a temperature at -273.5 degrees Celsius past absolute zero. The dilution refrigerator's application is an example of its capability to produce a unique temperature that is nowhere near any temperature present in other portions of the universe.

NPL experiments allowed Rossi to do astonishing quantum physics applications. For example, Rossi's team can observe and examine the transfer of single electrons in a given space and time, meaning that he can precisely know how many single electrons are moving in a unit of time.

By fusing single electron counting and the dilution refrigerator, more stunning outcomes can be produced. Rossi said that by controlling the said electrons each and separately under the conditions exhibited by the refrigerator, he would be able to generate and control electric current in the most accurate manner.

ALSO READ: Jumping from Hundreds to Millions: Spin-Based Silicon Key to Million-Qubit Quantum Computing, Another Step Towards Supercomputers

The NPL results gathered are mutually essential to Rossi's other job at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow. His team at the institute is currently developing one of the innovative trends in our age, which is quantum computers.

Moving electrons one by one is the trick to allow information in a semiconductor-based quantum computer to move around without restrictions, making the data and computation available faster than the typical supercomputers.

Quantum computing, which is the technology that specifically uses the principles of quantum physics, has a speed-based performance measured in quantum bits or qubits. The qubits can exist in various states simultaneously, meaning that information relay is much faster in quantum computers compared to classic computers.

Moreover, quantum computers are not only specialized in information processing but also have the ability to simulate complex examinations, including chemical reactions due to the computer itself that was built using a collection of atoms and molecules.

The scientific expertise of Rossi presents the idea of having a single material in two separate states at the same time. The quantum physics community is indeed a puzzling and mysterious field of science, and Rossi correlates it to his own corresponding roles indistinct specialization under quantum physics and meteorology.

Rossi said that combining the complex and almost invisible factors in quantum physics with the steadiness and repeatable disciplines of meteorology works together in a mind-boggling way.

RELATED ARTICLE: First Simulation of Quantum Devices in Classical Computer Hardware a Success; New Algorithm Could Setup Defining Benchmarks

Check out more news and information on Physicsin Science Times.

More:

A Day in the Life of a Quantum Engineer: Scientist Explains Perspective on Weirdest Field of Science, Quantum Mechanics - Science Times

Albert Einstein is the most renowned scientist in the XX Century. Author of the Theory of Relativity.

Albert Einstein (14 March 1879 18 April 1955) was a German-born theoretical physicist, widely acknowledged to be one of the greatest physicists of all time. Einstein is known for developing the theory of relativity, but he also made important contributions to the development of the theory of quantum mechanics. Relativity and quantum mechanics are together the two pillars of modern physics. His massenergy equivalence formula E = mc2, which arises from relativity theory, has been dubbed the worlds most famous equation.[7] His work is also known for its influence on the philosophy of science. He received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect, a pivotal step in the development of quantum theory. His intellectual achievements and originality resulted in Einstein becoming synonymous with genius. Read More on Wikipedia

Albert Einstein is the most renowned scientist in the XX Century. Author of the Theory of Relativity.

Job Title: Theoretical physicist

Excerpt from:

Albert Einstein. Physicist. Theory of Relativity - Martin Cid Magazine - Martin Cid Magazine