Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)
Sun Sep 22, 2013, 06:11 PM Sep 2013

A Jewel at the Heart of Quantum Physics



Physicists have discovered a jewel-like geometric object that dramatically simplifies calculations of particle interactions and challenges the notion that space and time are fundamental components of reality.

“This is completely new and very much simpler than anything that has been done before,” said Andrew Hodges, a mathematical physicist at Oxford University who has been following the work.

The revelation that particle interactions, the most basic events in nature, may be consequences of geometry significantly advances a decades-long effort to reformulate quantum field theory, the body of laws describing elementary particles and their interactions. Interactions that were previously calculated with mathematical formulas thousands of terms long can now be described by computing the volume of the corresponding jewel-like “amplituhedron,” which yields an equivalent one-term expression.

“The degree of efficiency is mind-boggling,” said Jacob Bourjaily, a theoretical physicist at Harvard University and one of the researchers who developed the new idea. “You can easily do, on paper, computations that were infeasible even with a computer before.”

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physics/
15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A Jewel at the Heart of Quantum Physics (Original Post) dipsydoodle Sep 2013 OP
The coolness of this is inversely proportional to my annabanana Sep 2013 #1
Mine too. dipsydoodle Sep 2013 #2
I need this guy to sing about it and explain it to me... targetpractice Sep 2013 #3
omg that is the cutest nerd! annabanana Sep 2013 #13
goesintas! porkified Sep 2013 #4
You can't post about goesintas without mentioning goesouttas! longship Sep 2013 #6
Does this mean Cryptoad Sep 2013 #5
There's a time cube like element to this. longship Sep 2013 #7
The non-time cube element is probably replacing Feynman diagrams caraher Sep 2013 #8
Well, that's where this goes off the rails. longship Sep 2013 #11
Thanks for the illuminating post. snagglepuss Sep 2013 #14
Please don't equate the ravings of a lunatic with this serious work just cause you don't understand. Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #10
Read my response just above. nt longship Sep 2013 #12
Large thread on this from Wednesday Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #9
Feynman himself had reservations about the mechanics of path integrals jobendorfer Sep 2013 #15

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)
2. Mine too.
Sun Sep 22, 2013, 06:23 PM
Sep 2013

I got that from one my dance friends on FB. She's into such stuff.

I can partly grasp it it and that's all.

targetpractice

(4,919 posts)
3. I need this guy to sing about it and explain it to me...
Sun Sep 22, 2013, 07:02 PM
Sep 2013

A Capella Science — Bohemian Gravity...



The above video is really really worth watching.

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
5. Does this mean
Sun Sep 22, 2013, 08:31 PM
Sep 2013

that if Albert's theory of time travel exist then the the "Future" exist just like the "Past" exist. ?

longship

(40,416 posts)
7. There's a time cube like element to this.
Sun Sep 22, 2013, 08:46 PM
Sep 2013

You know... Incomprehensibility.

I knew I should have gone beyond a BS in physics.

caraher

(6,278 posts)
8. The non-time cube element is probably replacing Feynman diagrams
Sun Sep 22, 2013, 08:57 PM
Sep 2013

In all the hype about this thing, as far as I can tell what it really amounts to is a calculational tool for finding the amplitudes for certain processes that can be so much more efficient because you don't end up calculating a bunch of loops.

The time-cube like element is the assertion that the existence of this geometric construct implies that time and space are somehow just epiphenomena, or "mere" emergent properties. I'm always skeptical of imputing deep ontological significance to mathematical constructs...

longship

(40,416 posts)
11. Well, that's where this goes off the rails.
Sun Sep 22, 2013, 09:16 PM
Sep 2013

A physicist would call the universe an emergent behavior of quantum theory, but not an epiphenomenum.
The latter implies a lack of causality and I don't know any physicist who credibly believes that. Quantum is still causal in that the universe as it is observed is an emergent and causal outcome of processes which are at their base, non-causal.

We see the same process in biology. Although evolution is blind and random at its base, natural selection leverages the random variations into a very powerful model for how life in the universe operates.

I firmly believe that quantum theory provides the base on which the universe operates. It is non-causal at its base, but the emergent behavior is causal, just like biology.

I think that if one strays far from these principles, one may be wasting ones career. But one never knows.

I wish these people luck, just like I do the String Modelers. Both are long shots. But we all need lots of ideas on the table, even if they seem weird.

And this does have that Time Cube element to it.

thanks for your response.

jobendorfer

(508 posts)
15. Feynman himself had reservations about the mechanics of path integrals
Mon Sep 23, 2013, 07:21 PM
Sep 2013

'It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of spacetime is going to do? So I have often made the hypothesis that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement, that in the end the machinery will be revealed, and the laws will turn out to be simple, like the chequer board with all its apparent complexities.’

- R. P. Feynman, The Character of Physical Law, November 1964 Cornell Lectures, broadcast and published in 1965 by BBC, pp. 57-8.


Sounds like somebody has made a major step in that direction ...

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»A Jewel at the Heart of Q...