Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics

[Doc]

https://muon-g-2.fnal.gov/

New results from the Muon g-2 experiment at Fermilab will be unveiled in a scientific seminar on August 10

Thanks for the update.

YW.

A friend, retired from the field, and I were recently talking about the muon g-2 experiment.

He noted that the most recent run had been completed for some time now and was wondering "Where's the results?".
Also wonder what progress, if any, has been made is resolving the significant disagreement between the two theoretical methods of calculation of the muon g-2 value.

I read about these experiments some time ago. I don't remember much of the detail However given that the experiment was run a year ago and they made this announcement I would imagine that 1) they found something new and 2) it was different enough from expectations that they took a year to confirm the results. OR maybe they were just procrastinating

[Nonc Hilaire]

Anytime something is ‘questionable’ in physics the effing muons are involved somehow. It’s always them. Every time.

[Doc]

https://news.fnal.gov/2023/08/muon-g-2- ... asurement/

Muon g-2 doubles down with latest measurement, explores uncharted territory in search of new physics

[Typhoon]

https://news.fnal.gov/2023/08/muon-g-2- ... asurement/

Muon g-2 doubles down with latest measurement, explores uncharted territory in search of new physics

The experimental result is a solid achievement.

On the other hand, the two theoretical methods used to predict the g-2 value disagree with each other.

Glossed over in the above PR, briefly discussed here

https://cerncourier.com/a/new-muon-g-2- ... asurement/

[Typhoon]

Starts with a Bang | Room temperature superconductivity is hard. LK-99 illustrates why

[Typhoon]

Nature | LK-99 isn’t a superconductor — how science sleuths solved the mystery

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumrun_Vafa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nima_Arkani-Hamed


https://ifpnews.com/string-theory-seeks ... s-physics/


https://iranwire.com/en/features/64673/

[Typhoon]

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumrun_Vafa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nima_Arkani-Hamed


https://ifpnews.com/string-theory-seeks ... s-physics/


https://iranwire.com/en/features/64673/

Both individuals are no doubt very clever.

However, "string theory" became the thing to work on, if one was a theoretical high energy particle physicist, about the same time I arrived in the US Midwest,1984. This was the beginning of the so-called first superstring revolution.

However, today "string theory" is a misnomer.
A theory in physics makes predictions about the physical universe that can be tested by experiment.

After some forty years of intense effort by supposedly "the best and the brightest" in theoretical physics
[Edward Witten et al.], "string theory" has yet to make a single prediction that can be put to test by experiment.
Even the understanding of what is "string theory" from a mathematical/theoretical perspective is still very vague and poorly defined.

So at best, the appropriate term should be "string hypothesis" or, more accurately, "string conjecture".

The above headline "String theory seeks to unravel basic mysteries of physics" would have been appropriate in 1985, today it's a bad joke.

One almost, but not quite, feels sorry for all those very bright boys who grew old spending their entire professional career on a conjecture that is, to a very high probability, "not even wrong".
They are unable to face physical reality and let go.

[Typhoon]

The other theory, as opposed to conjecture, that has dominated theoretical high energy particle physics, since the 1970's, is supersymmetry.

Despite intense experimental efforts to detect supersymmetric particles across several generations of particles accelerators, LEP [CERN], Tevatron [Fermilab], and LHC [CERN], nothing was observed. Nothing.

All but the most highly contrived and thus problematic supersymmetry models have been ruled out.

The influential theorists [John Ellis et al.] who have devoted their entire careers to supersymmetry refuse to confront reality - the lack of experimental evidence for their pet theory. This after repeatedly and confidently predicting a flood of supersymmetric particles first at LEP, then at the Tevatron, and lastly at the LHC. Thus this subfield has become pathological physics.

I could go on, but I'm thoroughly bored by the now decades long and still ongoing hype of such conjectures that have lead to dead ends.

In general, the field of high energy particle physics, after the observation of the HIggs boson - the last missing particle in the SM [Standard Model], which used to sit on the top of the fields of physics pyramid, has become moribund, in both in experiment and theory.

There are still many open questions in fundamental physics [PDF] , but no one has good ideas on how to proceed. Especially given the lack of any evidence of physics beyond the SM.

Aside from neutrino oscillations and [astrophysical] dark matter.
To date, terrestrial dark matter searches have come up empty. However, these experiments are at least important as they have effectively ruled out the theorist's favourite candidate for dark matter: WIMPS [Weakly Interacting Massive Particles].

Clever and ambitious physics students, those smart enough to see through the hype, are going into other fields.
All the other fields of physics are fine and continue to make remarkable progress.

[Doc]

Not sure of the source but they have really good graphics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rm9tIp3PkM

Physicist Observed for the First Time How Reality Works - Nobel Prize in Physics 2023 Explained

[Doc]

Not sure of the source but they have really good graphics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rm9tIp3PkM

Physicist Observed for the First Time How Reality Works - Nobel Prize in Physics 2023 Explained

[Typhoon]

Not sure of the source but they have really good graphics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rm9tIp3PkM

Physicist Observed for the First Time How Reality Works - Nobel Prize in Physics 2023 Explained

Aside from the silly hyperbole of the title "Physicist Observed for the First Time How Reality Works", a misinterpretation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and the use of the old, but wrong, image of electron orbiting the nucleus*, the video does explain why this years Nobel awards are well deserved.

*the video does show the correct image once, electron orbits as probability distributions about the atomic nucleus.

[Parodite]

Aharonov–Bohm effect

[...]
Global action vs. local forces
Similarly, the Aharonov–Bohm effect illustrates that the Lagrangian approach to dynamics, based on energies, is not just a computational aid to the Newtonian approach, based on forces. Thus the Aharonov–Bohm effect validates the view that forces are an incomplete way to formulate physics, and potential energies must be used instead. In fact Richard Feynman complained that he had been taught electromagnetism from the perspective of electromagnetic fields, and he wished later in life he had been taught to think in terms of the electromagnetic potential instead, as this would be more fundamental.[14] In Feynman's path-integral view of dynamics, the potential field directly changes the phase of an electron wave function, and it is these changes in phase that lead to measurable quantities.

Potential over fields and forces. Potential and probability move closer; differences, similarities, are they identical even? They have a non-local aspect without spooky action at a distance which is a win-win.

Absolute (causal) simultaneity is a problem, if not simply a hoax. Probably people just want it to be true because it appeals to romantic urges, the need to not feel alone in big empty space; if they scratch their armpits, somewhere else in the universe somebody else would experience the effect instantaneously. Who wouldn’t like action at a distance if it is spooky sex! There is a fetish for everybody. What instantaneous and simultaneous mean in a relativistic universe boggles the mind, however.

Particles of particle pairs that move in opposite directions, one with up-spin the other with down-spin… are like lefthand+righthand pairs of hand gloves. If you observe one of them being lefthand, you instantaneously know the other one must be righthand. One could call it instantaneous knowledge, but not physical action; that psychotic quantum voodoo can easily be dismissed.

So what can non-local potential/probability mean? To me this can best intuitively be summarized as: from every local point of view, the future is non-local. Past and future meet in the present. Important to note however, that both the past and the future are abstractions derived from a stream of changing events we call the present. More importantly, this is what the brain seems to be doing: construct a living present from what was and what might be, generated in boolean fashion.

For some reason, hardcore physicists and philosophers of science forget their own brain, the experiential interface that constructs space, time, causal relations, probabilities and so on, when they talk about the nature of physical reality. To find “a theory of everything” (a better theory of some of reality) would at least require a serious exploration of this experiential interface, and what it interfaces with. I figure the experiential interface functions like a complex semi-permeable membrane; consciousness is then literally "skin deep".

And yes, the future is everywhere all at once, but I can only be your past.

[Typhoon]

Aharonov and Bohm made a theoretical prediction that has now been confirmed by numerous experiments.

That's how an aspect of the the physical universe works at the quantum level

Whether we approve of it or not is immaterial, the physical universe is indifferent.

The best that we can do is to try and understand it.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Just one experiment away from collapse. Any day now.

[Typhoon]

Nature | Why superconductor research is in a ‘golden age’ — despite controversy

A good brief review of the state of the field.

[Parodite]

Aharonov–Bohm effect

[...]
Global action vs. local forces
Similarly, the Aharonov–Bohm effect illustrates that the Lagrangian approach to dynamics, based on energies, is not just a computational aid to the Newtonian approach, based on forces. Thus the Aharonov–Bohm effect validates the view that forces are an incomplete way to formulate physics, and potential energies must be used instead. In fact Richard Feynman complained that he had been taught electromagnetism from the perspective of electromagnetic fields, and he wished later in life he had been taught to think in terms of the electromagnetic potential instead, as this would be more fundamental.[14] In Feynman's path-integral view of dynamics, the potential field directly changes the phase of an electron wave function, and it is these changes in phase that lead to measurable quantities.

The interesting part to me here is that the experiment implies that potential energie is more fundamental than forces or fields. Not to question the Aharonov-Bohm experiment which would be idiotic. Since a potential associates with probability and probability distributions, it made me curious if/how quantum probablity could be translated into energy potentials.

[Typhoon]

Aharonov–Bohm effect

[...]
Global action vs. local forces
Similarly, the Aharonov–Bohm effect illustrates that the Lagrangian approach to dynamics, based on energies, is not just a computational aid to the Newtonian approach, based on forces. Thus the Aharonov–Bohm effect validates the view that forces are an incomplete way to formulate physics, and potential energies must be used instead. In fact Richard Feynman complained that he had been taught electromagnetism from the perspective of electromagnetic fields, and he wished later in life he had been taught to think in terms of the electromagnetic potential instead, as this would be more fundamental.[14] In Feynman's path-integral view of dynamics, the potential field directly changes the phase of an electron wave function, and it is these changes in phase that lead to measurable quantities.

The interesting part to me here is that the experiment implies that potential energie is more fundamental than forces or fields. Not to question the Aharonov-Bohm experiment which would be idiotic.

In current physics, it is much simpler to deal with potentials and kinetic energy than to try and keep track of the Newtonian forces on a system.

One has two choices, Lagrangian mechanics or Hamiltonian mechanics as a starting point.

Unlike Newtonian forces, these classical mechanics formulations can be extended to quantum mechanics [QM] and quantum field theory [QFT]

Since a potential associates with probability and probability distributions, it made me curious if/how quantum probability could be translated into energy potentials.

Newtonian mechanics is not applicable to QM.

In QM, kinetic energy and potential determine the time evolution of the wavefunction - the probability amplitude of a physical system.
This formulation of QM is known as the Schroedinger equation.

[Parodite]

Since a potential associates with probability and probability distributions, it made me curious if/how quantum probability could be translated into energy potentials.

Newtonian mechanics is not applicable to QM.

In QM, kinetic energy and potential determine the time evolution of the wavefunction - the probability amplitude of a physical system.
This formulation of QM is known as the Schroedinger equation.

Thank you. Last part I'm not sure I understand. If the Schrodinger equation gives the probability amplitude of the kinetic+potential energy evolution along a time axis, it does in fact describe energy states: a hamiltonian operator on kinetic+potential energy state vectors. (I'm probably garbling terminology) So although theses quantum formulations describe the probability of measurements, the physical stuff that these probabilities concern themselves with is energy: kinetic + potential.

Another intriguing mystery is that the probability distributions that these quantum formalisms generate do not describe what happened during an actual instance of a measurement. In the old analogy of throwing a dice this not seem much of a mystery: for each seperate throw the causal path is obscured. Impossible to sufficiently monitor and measure each step even if we tried; the uncertaintly principle makes every next event impossible to predict "exactly" (to me this in simple english just translates as: we can't really freeze reality into a moment). But we intuit that while the dice is spinning, some juicy indeterminate causal connections operate in a non-linear vector space that cause the dice to show a 5 and not 1,2,4 or 6. I don't think that probability is what drives the evolution of events even though the probability distributions generated by QM formalisms are pitch perfect and can do without hidden variables.

[Typhoon]

Since a potential associates with probability and probability distributions, it made me curious if/how quantum probability could be translated into energy potentials.

Newtonian mechanics is not applicable to QM.

In QM, kinetic energy and potential determine the time evolution of the wavefunction - the probability amplitude of a physical system.
This formulation of QM is known as the Schroedinger equation.

Thank you. Last part I'm not sure I understand. If the Schrodinger equation gives the probability amplitude of the kinetic+potential energy evolution along a time axis, it does in fact describe energy states: a hamiltonian operator on kinetic+potential energy state vectors. (I'm probably garbling terminology) So although theses quantum formulations describe the probability of measurements, the physical stuff that these probabilities concern themselves with is energy: kinetic + potential.

Once set of solutions of the time-dependent Schroedinger equation is the standing waves.
These states correspond to the [typically] discrete energy levels of the system

However, the preferred [i.e., simpler] method is to solve the time-independent Schroedinger equation.

time-independent Schroedinger equation

The prototypical all-important system is the quantum harmonic oscillator.

Another intriguing mystery is that the probability distributions that these quantum formalisms generate do not describe what happened during an actual instance of a measurement. In the old analogy of throwing a dice this not seem much of a mystery: for each seperate throw the causal path is obscured. Impossible to sufficiently monitor and measure each step even if we tried; the uncertaintly principle makes every next event impossible to predict "exactly" (to me this in simple english just translates as: we can't really freeze reality into a moment). But we intuit that while the dice is spinning, some juicy indeterminate causal connections operate in a non-linear vector space that cause the dice to show a 5 and not 1,2,4 or 6. I don't think that probability is what drives the evolution of events even though the probability distributions generated by QM formalisms are pitch perfect and can do without hidden variables.

QM is the way nature works, to the best of our knowledge.
QM, as is the case with any physical theory, does not explain "Why?", it is a model of "How",

[Parodite]

I'm just curious how it works, that probability can appear causal when it isn't

Maybe some overlap with the why and the how and a nice read:

The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect
https://a.co/d/g7F9CfR

'Correlation does not imply causation.' This mantra was invoked by scientists for decades in order to avoid taking positions as to whether one thing caused another, such as smoking and cancer and carbon dioxide and global warming. But today, that taboo is dead. The causal revolution, sparked by world-renowned computer scientist Judea Pearl and his colleagues, has cut through a century of confusion and placed cause and effect on a firm scientific basis. Now, Pearl and science journalist Dana Mackenzie explain causal thinking to general readers for the first time, showing how it allows us to explore the world that is and the worlds that could have been. It is the essence of human and artificial intelligence. And just as Pearl's discoveries have enabled machines to think better, The Book of Why explains how we can think better.

[Typhoon]

I'm just curious how it works, that probability can appear causal when it isn't

The time evolution of classical position is replaced by the time evolution of the probability amplitude [complex] wave function over time as given by the Schroedinger equation.

Maybe some overlap with the why and the how and a nice read:

The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect
https://a.co/d/g7F9CfR

'Correlation does not imply causation.' This mantra was invoked by scientists for decades in order to avoid taking positions as to whether one thing caused another, such as smoking and cancer and carbon dioxide and global warming. But today, that taboo is dead. The causal revolution, sparked by world-renowned computer scientist Judea Pearl and his colleagues, has cut through a century of confusion and placed cause and effect on a firm scientific basis. Now, Pearl and science journalist Dana Mackenzie explain causal thinking to general readers for the first time, showing how it allows us to explore the world that is and the worlds that could have been. It is the essence of human and artificial intelligence. And just as Pearl's discoveries have enabled machines to think better, The Book of Why explains how we can think better.

Defiantly worth reading. I've read a few paper by Pearl and have his classic text "Causality" sitting on my bookshelf, yet to be read as it does not apply to my current work. However, the concept of causality that he deals with is not related, in any direct sense, to QM.

[Nonc Hilaire]

I'm just curious how it works, that probability can appear causal when it isn't

If I understand the question, I see two things:

1) Absence of correlation has a definite negative probability of causality, and there is a tendency to think functions can be reversed in life as easily as they can in theory.

2) Relative probabilities are commonly confused with veridical probabilities to create a false sense of causation.

[Parodite]

I'm just curious how it works, that probability can appear causal when it isn't

If I understand the question, I see two things:

1) Absence of correlation has a definite negative probability of causality, and there is a tendency to think functions can be reversed in life as easily as they can in theory.

2) Relative probabilities are commonly confused with veridical probabilities to create a false sense of causation.

Hot potato for a very long time is the question how to interprete QM ontologically. What it reveals, tells, maybe suggests.. about the nature of reality as opposed to our knowledge of reality and how knowledge is created.

Ontology vs Epistomology. In a nutshell the controversy between Einstein and Bohr:

E: "God doesn't play dice". He rejected the idea that reality is probabilistic in nature. To which Bohr replied:
B: "Don't tell God what to do."

I would think the nature of reality best be described purely in terms of energetic activity. This activity has a maximum speed: light. (the only speed)

Probability distributions are mathematical descriptions closely linked to and correlated with energetic activities in our neural nets that create "probabilistic maps" of reality in boolean fashion, which is what we call consciousness. This conscious neurological process however is far removed from the actual activity in QM experiments.

There is an amount of projection going on: we see the world how our brains make us see it - which should always be taken into account when we try imagine what the world is like independent of our brains. Unfortunately we are not able to do the ultimate Houdini escape trick from our own brains and 'look at the world truly objectively".

Personally I think a decent ontology is impossible, but a lot of wild and crazy ideas for which zero evidence exists can be eliminated. Negation won't bring us to the truth but at least it keeps most of the crazies out.

[Doc]

I'm just curious how it works, that probability can appear causal when it isn't

If I understand the question, I see two things:

1) Absence of correlation has a definite negative probability of causality, and there is a tendency to think functions can be reversed in life as easily as they can in theory.

2) Relative probabilities are commonly confused with veridical probabilities to create a false sense of causation.

Hot potato for a very long time is the question how to interprete QM ontologically. What it reveals, tells, maybe suggests.. about the nature of reality as opposed to our knowledge of reality and how knowledge is created.

Ontology vs Epistomology. In a nutshell the controversy between Einstein and Bohr:

E: "God doesn't play dice". He rejected the idea that reality is probabilistic in nature. To which Bohr replied:
B: "Don't tell God what to do."

I would think the nature of reality best be described purely in terms of energetic activity. This activity has a maximum speed: light. (the only speed)

Probability distributions are mathematical descriptions closely linked to and correlated with energetic activities in our neural nets that create "probabilistic maps" of reality in boolean fashion, which is what we call consciousness. This conscious neurological process however is far removed from the actual activity in QM experiments.

There is an amount of projection going on: we see the world how our brains make us see it - which should always be taken into account when we try imagine what the world is like independent of our brains. Unfortunately we are not able to do the ultimate Houdini escape trick from our own brains and 'look at the world truly objectively".

Personally I think a decent ontology is impossible, but a lot of wild and crazy ideas for which zero evidence exists can be eliminated. Negation won't bring us to the truth but at least it keeps most of the crazies out.

My crazy idea: I believe we can't see all of the spots on the dice. Or even there are dice we cannot see at all.