Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Quasiparticles and Quasi-Worlds - Frank Wilczek
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 июн 2022
- Professor and Nobel laureate in Physics Frank Wilczek speaks about the history and potential of quasiparticles, and how they can be used to imagine alternative worlds of matter. The talk took place at InstituteQ’s colloquium on 16 June.
InstituteQ, a collaboration between Aalto University, the University of Helsinki and VTT, is the foremost quantum community in Finland. instituteq.fi
Thank you for posting this!
very informative. Thanks for posting.
it is not a magnetic hysteresis effect, it is a hysteresis effect that has to do with all interactions but the most significant effect is a spin coupling between fermions or polerizations of "photons" or light waves.
I still don't understand the time reversal part around 39:00, what is the theory, what is the experiment, and how do they differ?
if you think about it, we know of no system that is self reproducing except the entire ecosystem if you remove all elements that can be disposed off without everything going extinct. our sustinance depends directly on plants and microorganisms, we have reached a point where we could hypothetically synthesize everything ourselves, but we do not even know how everything concerning life works yet, so we are somewhat lost, we could still probably with enough effort create a synthetic basis for our own sustinance in terms of all the right proteins, amino acids, vitamins and so on, but it is a monumental task. we cannot as of now boast of being able to produce machinery either without access to the byproducts of life, we could probably build entierly synthetically produced substitutes but we are some distance away from being able to self reproduce machinces without the resources left behind by plants and microorganisms.
well you can have knots or braids as a sort of field configuration representing a hysteresis effect, of where in the space particles has been and who they interacted with, that can have implications for entanglement between states not on a 2d boundary. the knots themselves are then not really in 4 dimensions but are themselves changing dynamical objects in 3+1. for example you could have a coupling between fermions that are charges and have a, intrinsic magnetic field on space at any one time that could change in time, but that structure would not necessarily be Lorentz invariant, in fact it can't be without magic, this is what is involved in the interactions behind entanglement as a phenomena.
just imagine tracing time only along trajectories in 3d space, forget about time as a dimension, the knots can be made and undone over time yes, but that is kind of the point, it is not the world lines in space time that are knotted necessarily but the world lines in space that are knotted and the effects of that knotting has a specific structure to it that induces interactions between particles and parts of space that literally is entanglement. you have to go into full detail for these statements to feel natural but it is true, and if you think about it, it is also natural, entanglement sort of has to be a hysteresis effect, it is something left behind making variables dependent on their past interactions.
32:43 Reverse the two tobekie tepee and get a Sorta Penrose
Frank Wilczek reminds me of Karl Heinz Lubba the Soldier-Social Worker/Observer. T.A.
Hello Professor Wilczek, another interesting lecture. You refere to the standard model as being beautiful, but then despite the tremendous amount of work that brilliant physecists like yourself have put in to solve the existing ongoing unsolved problems that prevent it working, you ask why.
With the greatest respect, I believe that the standard model is fudamentally flawed at the very basic level of the composition of the atom, for the following reasons amongst others
a). How is it possible for a single electron as in the case of the hydrogen atom, to form an ' Electron Cloud ', that fills the whole area between the nucleus and the outer boundary of the atom, at every moment in time, when this area is over 100,000, 000 times that of the electron?
b). If the electron does act as desribed in the standard model, by whizzing around the nucleus, changing trajectory many thousands of timmes a second, where does it get its energy from to initiate and maintain its momentum?
c). Following on from b). this momentum and changing trajectory, would require energy to be expended, and thus dissipating heat. Therefore every atom and thus all matter would be emitting heat, which plainly it is not?
d). How is it possible for the electron to have the same charge holdig capacity as the proton, which is around 2,000 times its size. It would be like a tiny watch battery having the same charge holding capacity as a very large tractor battery?
I have been working on a very radical hypothesis for an alternative to the standard model of the composition of the atom, the cornerstone of which, is that the electron as described in the standard model, is not a fundamental solid particle, but is in fact composed of much smaller negativel charged monopole particles called ' Harveytrons '.
These incredibly small particles, fill every available empty space within the atom forming a cloud. this cloud extends to every available empty space throughout the universe.
Together with a corresponding positively charged monopole particle, they composed all of the nuclei in the universe. The negatively charged monopole ' Harveytrons ', are the ' Dark Matter ', and the missing mass of the universe. Because there is a massive excecess of the negatively charged particles throughout the universe, there exists a negative force of repulsion. This is the ' Dark Energy ', and is what is causing the universe to expand. It is also a constituent of gravity, which I believe is both a force of attraction and repulsion.
To make sense of my hypothesis, it needs to be read in the whole, which I would be happy to make available to you if you were interested. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.
Dear Tony, thank you for your comment. If you want to contact Professor Wilczek, please visit his site: www.frankawilczek.com/
@@aaltouniversity Hello, I have just tried to send a copy of my hypothesis to professor ' Frank Wilczek '. If does not arrive, please could you contact me on my email, so I can send it by an attachment. Kind regards,
Tony Marsh.
Lol, good luck with that.
I agree that our =current views are very flawed, indeed, because you end up with points that "rotate" without any surface do do so, for example.@@tonymarshharveytron1970
Electron looks point-like because of the way it interacts with matter - ruclips.net/video/zPZrDbPAuKs/видео.html
Hello, thank you for your reply.
I have an hypothesis that I have been compiling for over a year now, which I believe can answer many of the oustanding problems in both ' Quantum Mechanics ' and ' Cosmology ', including ' Dark Matter ', ' Dark Energy ', ' Antimatter ', and ' Gravity ' and much more.
I am a 73 year old independent particle / Astrophysicist, and a successful inventor, with Patents granted. My hypothesis is a radical alternative to the standard model, and is based on Logic , not mathematics. If you are interested, I could send you a copy of my latest draft by an attachment to an email. It could be looked on as a TOE, and may be of interest to you. Kind regards,
Tony Marsh.
Quasi super species!
I know what Quasimodo is so this must be for me