Image credit: Cern -simulated data modeled for the CMS particle detector

Though it has yet to be confirmed to a degree which constitutes scientific certainty, last years discovery of what is believed to the higgs bosan- the final fundamental particle described by the standard model, and the one believed to be responsible for imparting all regular matter with mass-  has brought with it  a number of new scientific possibilities. One of them, according to physicist Joseph Lykken, while speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), is that the entire universe might exist within an unstable vacuum; one which could potentially someday reorganize itself into a more stable state. Which would be bad for anything existing in the current one. Which probably won't be much, anyway.Seriously, we're all gonna be long dead when and if any of this happens. So it's okay to think it's cool.

According to Dr Lykken, via BBC News:

"It turns out there's a calculation you can do in our Standard Model of particle physics, once you know the mass of the Higgs boson," - "If you use all the physics we know now, and you do this straightforward calculation - it's bad news." - "What happens is you get just a quantum fluctuation that makes a tiny bubble of the vacuum the Universe really wants to be in. And because it's a lower-energy state, this bubble will then expand, basically at the speed of light, and sweep everything before it,"

As best as I understand all of this. One of the debated physical properties of the universe in which we all live, is that the vacuum in which said universe exists, is not as stable as it could be. The notion that this instability is one of the physical properties of our current universe, isn't a new one. But determining weather or not this theory is true, is all based on a calculation involving the frequency of the higgs' own mass, versus that of the top quark's pole mass, amongst other things. If our current understandings of those measurements and calculations hold true, then it's possible that at some point in the distant future - as in, an incomprehensibly long time from now-  a fluctuation within the field which maintains said vacuum, could cause it to re-align itself into a more stable state. Meaning; The universe in which we currently live, will be no more. Which sounds bad. But, again, you're gonna be dead anyway. So don't worry too much about that. Besides which, the calculations described by DR. Lykken also bring with them another possibility: What if the end, is really just the beginning?

"It's much easier to explain a lot of things if what we see is a cycle. If I were to bet my own money on it, I'd bet the cyclic idea is right," - Dr.Joseph Lykken [BBC] 

Potential evidence of successive big bangs/Gurzadyan and R. Penrose

In other words, there have been a number of theories over the years which propose the idea that our universe is cyclical. And some have even argued that there is physical evidence which supports them. Most notably, maps of our universe's cosmic background radiation, which some have interpreted as containing rings of radiation consistent with remnants of a previous -possibly even multiple- big bang(s).[SEE: eternal inflation and bubble collision ]. So if this whole quantum vacuum bubble thing turns out to be true, it could be a strong indication that the universe we currently live in, is just one of many iterations in a potentially endless series. Then again, future measurements of the proposed higgs particle could invalidate all these things -cause that's just how theoretical physics works. Either way, I certainly can't proclaim to understand all of this well enough to speculate as to weather or not it really does lend any further validity to the idea of a cyclical universe. I just thought it was something fun to think about. Which is kind of all this blog is really about.


Source: BBC News  
Image Credit: Cern , Gurzadyan and R. Penrose

THEY'VE GONE PLAID!

If you've been paying any attention to me at all over the past few years then it should come as absolutely no shock to you whatsoever, to learn that I have often tried to work out for myself exactly what one would see if traveling at light speed towards an object. Why? Because that just happens to be the kind of thing I think sounds like a good time. But if you never have before now, think about it for a minute... Did sci-fi get it right with their streaking star fields? Or would the objects in front of you appear to freeze in place, the way physicists have described an object passing over the event horizon of a black whole would look to an outside observer? Would the viewer's apparent horizon stretch and blur into a blinding white light? Would visible objects just disappear altogether, leaving a seemingly empty black field in it's place? Or maybe something else entirely, that I've forgotten to mention? Either way, if those don't all seem like interesting things to ponder to you, well, I just don't know what else to say. I know what I think about it, and it seems as though I'm mostly correct this time around- though not entirely for the right reasons. But as I've said many times before, I'm WAY not qualified to speculate scientifically about anything. But hankfully, I'm not the only one who wonders about these sorts of things. And most of the people who do, are usually actual physicists- or at least in the process of becoming actual physicists. Which is why  four students from the University of Leicester recently put their actual knowledge and education to the question of what it might look like to travel at light speed, and here's what they came up with.

Via: Gizmag.com:

Traveling Through Hyperspace. Image: University of Leicester

" The fourth year physics students – Riley Connors, Katie Dexter, Joshua Argyle, and Cameron Scoular – say that the crew wouldn’t see star lines stretching out past the ship during the jump to hyperspace, but would actually see a central disc of bright light. This is due to the Doppler effect, specifically the Doppler blue shift, that results in the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation, including visible light, shortening as the source of the light moves towards the observer.

As the spaceship makes the jump to hyperspace, the wavelength of the light from the stars would shift out of the visible spectrum into the X-ray range. Meanwhile, Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR), which is thermal radiation that is spread fairly uniformly across the universe and is thought to be left over from the Big Bang, would shift into the visible spectrum, appearing to the crew as a central disc of bright light.

“If the Millennium Falcon existed and really could travel that fast, sunglasses would certainly be advisable,” said Connors. “On top of this, the ship would need something to protect the crew from harmful X-ray radiation.” "

So basically, what you'd see -assuming you could look out a window in the first place, which seems inadvisable given the torrents of amplified thermal radiation pounding against your vessel, but if you could. Odds are you'd see something like the representation above. By which I mean the still black and white one not the gif, that's from Spaceballs; there's probably not a lot of plaid in hyper space

But even if the truth about traveling at light speed isn't as interesting as you might like it to be, aesthetically speaking. It's still a pretty awesome thing to try and imagine; stars streaming at you so quickly that they all soon disappear from view behind a wall of white hot light. Not to mention the astounding distances you'd be traveling while they do it. And more importantly. Knowing, not only what traveling through hyper space might look like, but also what it would mean for the levels of deadly microwave radiation bombarding any ship traveling through it, are just two more examples to add to the already lengthy list of reasons for us all to stop and acknowledge Star Trek's superiority to Star Wars. Since it's now obvious that Luke, Han, and the gang, would clearly have been cooked like potatoes through those 70's party-van style portholes on the Millenium Falcon. While Kirk, Picard and the rest, would have been just fine observing the universe on an advanced view-screen from the comfort and safety of their shielded Starship.

And isn't that what REALLY matters?

I think it is.



 -CAINE-

 Source: Gizmag.com
  

One of the most astonishing and confusing properties of the quantum world is the phenomena of quantum entanglement. Through this effect, it's possible for two individual particles to become linked to one another and act as single system, regardless of the distance between them.

Say, for instance, you managed to entangle a couple of particles, A and B. Even if particle A were residing quietly inside an accelerator here on Earth, while particle B was busy floating along through space on the other side of the galaxy, this entangled pair would still act as a single system. If one were to then try and observe particle A - thus causing a shift in it's quantum state through the mere act of observation, and the joy of  the uncertainty principal, quantum superposition, and all that - particle B, would instantaneously adopt the same quantum state.

Now, I'm not going to pretend to understand exactly how quantum entanglement manages to happen in the first place, or how scientists manage to deliberately produce the effect for experimentation, because, I don't- in my defense, neither does anyone else. But the phenomena of quantum entanglement is one that's been known to, and studied by, quantum physicists, for quite some time. And while it's easy to imagine a whole host of spectacular Sci-fi applications for the effect (some of which might also become a reality someday), currently, one of the most promising, real world application for entanglement, is in the field of data transfer, processing, and communications.

Enter, the Qubit. Which is the quantum analog to the the digital bit.

Now then, if I've done a fair job of explaining the concept of entanglement to you, you'll understand why the word teleporting appears in quotation marks in the title of this entry. Because when a group of scientists from China recently managed to set a new record for quantum "teleportation" by successfully transferring information between 1100 photons, across 97 km of free-space, they didn't actually teleport anything. Rather, they managed to successfully entangle and effect one group of particles, by manipulating another, across a previously unachievable distance. In other words, they were able to transfer data (qubits), from one place to another, without actually transferring anything at all. Which is kind of what makes Quantum entanglement such an attractive means of communication and data transfer in the first place. Since there's literally nothing to intercept, eaves dropping on this form of quantum communication,  would be nearly impossible. I say nearly, because, I can easily imagine some clever person finding a way to entangle a set of particles of their own, in order to intercept transmissions. But that too is just my own bit of speculative science fiction, at this point.

One of the (many) current problems and limitations of this particular method of quantum transfer, and why this groups achievement is a significant one - aside from just being cool as hell- is that entangling particles is understandably difficult. So the entanglements currently being created, are easily broken and interfered with. Which is why the previous record for such a transfer, which was also set by a group from China, in 2010, was just 16 km,.Which still seems an impressive feat, by my standards. But if the results of experiments like these can be reproduced, and the entanglements themselves can be made more stable. I think communications through quantum "telepotation", might actually be a reality, someday. Though certainly not anytime soon.

As for actual the actual teleportation of complex matter, which is what we all think of when we read the word... Sorry, but I still don't see it happening.

But that's a discussion for a different day.

-CAINE-

VIA: Wired Science -And- phys.org

Posted by Youtube user:Bestofscience

For more info on CERN's findings, and what it would mean if proven true, here's an Interview from the BBC with physicist Brian Cox on CERN's findings:


Posted by Youtube user: SuperRorylewis

Enjoy.

If you'd like to try and wade a little deeper into the world of quantum computers on your own, THIS ARTICLE from How Stuff Works has one of the simpler explanations of the processor's inner working I was able to find. Or, if you'd really like to dive into the deep end of the pool, you should check out the following video from UNSW TV.


Posted by Youtube user: UNSW

For More about the world of particle physics, I encourage you to visit SciTechUK's channel on Youtube, to watch all 15 parts ( don't worry, most of them are less than 3 minutes) of the following program, on particle physics, "In Search of Giants", presented by Professor Brian Cox. You could also visit My Channel, where I have arranged them in order via a playlist.


Posted by Youtube user: SciTechUK

For more information on Hawking radiation, check out the following clip:

Posted by YouTube user:stevebd1

In the most well known version the double slit experiment, a laser beam or even a single particle, is fired through parallel slits in a thin plate. When the particles pass through a single slit a single-slit diffraction pattern is produced. When particles are fired through both slits, an interference pattern emerges as the edges of particle waves crash into one another like rings on the surface of a pond. Most astonishingly of all, the same patterns are produced when particles are fired one at a time into the slits. Meaning, even a single particle behaves as both a wave and a particle and actually manages to interfere with itself as it passes through the slits in the plate.

Researchers from the Institute for Quantum Computing at the University of Waterloo in Canada recently conducted a triple slit experiment. The result of this experiment not only continues to support the theory of wave particle duality, but also seems to confirm predictions made by German physicist Max Borne in the 1920's. Borne's proposal that quantum pairs, not triplets or more can interfere with one another, has been widely accepted by physicists for years even though the reason why quantum interference stops at two is unclear and had not been explicitly tested until Waterloo's most recent experiment.
-CAINE-