Duda Jarek

Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About Duda Jarek

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Duda Jarek

    Immunity by incompatibility – hope in chiral life

    I don't doubt that free-cell synthesis can get high production ... assuming you have a good source of e.g. polymerase, which are the real problem here - without mirror cells and ribosomes ... Beside industrial applications, mirror life will be also a crucial milestone in development of synthetic life - the first really different and reasonable (in contrast to e.g. additional nucleotides), and natural development will make it in reach in a few decades, e.g.: 2002 - synthetic virus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_virology 2010 - synthetic cell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cell#Synthetic_cells 2013 - synthetic ribosome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_ribosome 2016 - large mirror protein (polymerase) Will we be really able to contain it then forever? - with human factors, antibiotics resistance, accidents, etc. ... it seems a matter of time when it will finally reach natural environment and start searching an ecological niche to populate, evolve, diversify ...
  2. Duda Jarek

    Immunity by incompatibility – hope in chiral life

    I don't have education in biochemistry (physics, cs, math), but it seems highly unlikely that you could produce macroscopic (e.g. grams) amounts of large molecules this way (?) Especially proteins requiring mirror ribosomes, often complex post processing, help in folding ... Cell-free synthesis might be useful for extremely rare diseases, but finding some promising drug for a common disease in this huge mirror world, there would be needed kilograms, tonnes to synthesize - what is completely unrealistic without mirror life ... which should become easier every year due to natural development of technology. Anyway, I think it is a matter of time (less than a century) when, due to ambition/money incentives/"because we can", somebody will open this Pandora box, e.g. secretly in a lab in China like for CRISPR babies ...
  3. Duda Jarek

    Immunity by incompatibility – hope in chiral life

    Hello, the Nature article mentions aptamers as direct application, which are length 30-80 oligonucleotides. Enantiomers of the small ones probably can be directly synthesized in negligible quantity. Now they have mirror polymerase allowing to speed it up, but being relatively costly to synthesize, how many copies can produce a single molecule of polymerase? For mass production there is needed mirror life. And aptamers are just the beginning - mirror life would literally double the space of possible large molecules we can mass produce. Starting actively searching this space, we can find many valuable ones. Especially enzymes - complex and effective nanomachines, optimized for very sophisticated tasks. Anyway, there are extremely strong incentives, not only financial, to go toward finally synthesizing mirror life - like CRISPR babies, there might be no way to stop it (?) What we can do is trying to prepare - understand it well, try to protect from the dangers. And there are many of them - earlier than mirror cyanobacteria dominating our ecosystem due to less prepare natural enemies, potentially killing us all in a few centuries. Bacteria has extremely fast evolution - already can consume l-sugars, and can quickly adapt to others. Mirror E. Coli might already find unusual ecological niches, disturbing ecosystem in an unpredictable way. I wouldn't be surprised if synthesizing mirror life was a factor in Fermi paradox - it is a natural possibility in development of civilization ... which might lead to its extermination.
  4. studiot, according to Wikipedia, Earnshaw's theorem says "that a collection of point charges cannot be maintained in a stable stationary equilibrium configuration solely by the electrostatic interaction of the charges" ... while here we are talking about configuration of EM field of a single electron. Regarding " Or are you claiming that non tunneling electrons do not have a wavefunction that extends beyond their situs? " - no, by "on average" I mean that you can translate this wavefunction into probability to answer the question of size of electron, e.g. a radius such that half of 511keVs energy is on average in this radius around the center of electron. swansont, if you want to relate radius of electron to its electric dipole moment ... why not to use magnetic dipole instead? - which is huge. If you are able to defend Dehmelt's g-factor argument I would be really interested. It looks like at first he extrapolated with line, getting negative radius for electron - so he has chosen parabola to get exactly 0 radius for g=2, what is "proving" by assuming the thesis. Also, we have more 3-parton particles, like neutron, which RMS radius is negative due to minuses being further than pluses ... For fundamental particles we cannot talk about RMS radius, but we can about differences from (infinite energy) EM field configuration of perfect point charge.
  5. As written, I have returned to this topic due to Neumaier's page with many materials: https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physfaq/topics/pointlike.html But generally the fundamental question of size of electron remains unanswered - while there are many suggestions of femtometer-scale size of electron (as deformation from perfect point charge), I still haven't seen any real (not fitting parabola to two point) arguments that it is essentially smaller (claimed e.g. in Wikipedia).
  6. studiot, quantum formalism can be translated into probabilities with Born rule - while we cannot ask about exact e.g. position, QM still allows to ask about its expected value: "on average". swansont, looking at electron-positon scattering cross section as one of suggestions, it includes all their interactions. Electron's 511keV energy is at least partially distributed into energy of fields of interactions: probably mainly EM. Still we don't know this distribution (even average), naive assumption of perfect point would mean infinite energy. So what is this configuration of EM field near the center of electron? E.g. in ball of what radius there is half of this energy? (on average)
  7. Ok, you can say that there are some quantum or statistical fluctuations ... I can respond with just adding "on average". For example: ball of which radius contains on average half of 511keVs energy of electron? Is it femtomer-scale radius, or much smaller?
  8. Generally, we are interested in size of rest electron, not of squeezed electron. There are some complex dependencies from its squeezing with Lorentz contraction - we need to remove them, e.g. by extrapolating to rest energy (any other ways?) A general question regards distribution of electron's 511keVs energy - some of it is in energy of electric field (... infinite assuming perfect point), some could be e.g. in energy of fields related to other interactions electron takes part: gravitational, weak ... So e.g. ball of which radius contains half of 511keVs energy of electron? Is it femtomer-scale radius, or much smaller?
  9. Arnold Neumaier has responded on stack ( https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/397022/experimental-boundaries-for-size-of-electron ) - he has gathered many materials on this topic: https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physfaq/topics/pointlike.html But still no clear argument that electron is much smaller then femtometer (?) Anyway, to better specify the problem, define E(r) as energy in a radius r ball around electron. We know that E(r) ~ 511keVs for large r, for smaller it reduces e.g. by energy of electric field. Assuming perfect point charge, we would get E(r) -> -infinity for r->0 this way. Where does divergence from this assumption starts? More specifically: for example where is maximum of E'(r) - in which distance there is maximal deposition of 511keVs energy? Or median range: such that E(r) = 511/2 keVs. It is not a question about the exact values, only their scale: ~femtometer or much lower?
  10. Sure, it misses a lot from real physics, like it seems impossible to model 3D this way, also clock here is external while in physics it is rather internal of particles (de Broglie's, zitterbewegung): https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/386715/does-electron-have-some-intrinsic-1021-hz-oscillations-de-broglies-clock But these hydrodynamical analogues provide very valuable intuitions about the real physics ...
  11. Oh, muuuch more has happened - see my slides with links to materials: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kxvvhj0cnl1iqxr/Couder.pdf Interference in particle statistics of double-slit experiment (PRL 2006) - corpuscle travels one path, but its "pilot wave" travels all paths - affecting trajectory of corpuscle (measured by detectors). Unpredictable tunneling (PRL 2009) due to complicated state of the field ("memory"), depending on the history - they observe exponential drop of probability to cross a barrier with its width. Landau orbit quantization (PNAS 2010) - using rotation and Coriolis force as analog of magnetic field and Lorentz force (Michael Berry 1980). The intuition is that the clock has to find a resonance with the field to make it a standing wave (e.g. described by Schrödinger's equation). Zeeman-like level splitting (PRL 2012) - quantized orbits split proportionally to applied rotation speed (with sign). Double quantization in harmonic potential (Nature 2014) - of separately both radius (instead of standard: energy) and angular momentum. E.g. n=2 state switches between m=2 oval and m=0 lemniscate of 0 angular momentum. Recreating eigenstate form statistics of a walker's trajectories (PRE 2013). In the slides there are also hydrodynamical analogous of Casimir and Aharonov-Bohm.
  12. While the original Bell inequality might leave some hope for violation, here is one which seems completely impossible to violate - for three binary variables A,B,C: Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) >= 1 It has obvious intuitive proof: drawing three coins, at least two of them need to give the same value. Alternatively, choosing any probability distribution pABC among these 2^3=8 possibilities, we have: Pr(A=B) = p000 + p001 + p110 + p111 ... Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) = 1 + 2 p000 + 2 p111 ... however, it is violated in QM, see e.g. page 9 here: http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/ph229/notes/chap4.pdf If we want to understand why our physics violates Bell inequalities, the above one seems the best to work on as the simplest and having absolutely obvious proof. QM uses Born rules for this violation: 1) Intuitively: probability of union of disjoint events is sum of their probabilities: pAB? = pAB0 + pAB1, leading to above inequality. 2) Born rule: probability of union of disjoint events is proportional to square of sum of their amplitudes: pAB? ~ (psiAB0 + psiAB1)^2 Such Born rule allows to violate this inequality to 3/5 < 1 by using psi000=psi111=0, psi001=psi010=psi011=psi100=psi101=psi110 > 0. We get such Born rule if considering ensemble of trajectories: that proper statistical physics shouldn't see particles as just points, but rather as their trajectories to consider e.g. Boltzmann ensemble - it is in Feynman's Euclidean path integrals or its thermodynamical analogue: MERW (Maximal Entropy Random Walk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximal_entropy_random_walk ). For example looking at [0,1] infinite potential well, standard random walk predicts rho=1 uniform probability density, while QM and uniform ensemble of trajectories predict different rho~sin^2 with localization, and the square like in Born rules has clear interpretation: Is ensemble of trajectories the proper way to understand violation of this obvious inequality? Comparing with local realism from Bell theorem, path ensemble has realism and is non-local in standard "evolving 3D" way of thinking ... however, it is local in 4D view: spacetime, Einstein's block universe - where particles are their trajectories. What other models with realism allow to violate this inequality?
  13. Sure, it isn't - fm size is only a suggestion, but a general conclusion here is that cross section does not offer a sub-femtometer boundary for electron size (?) Dehmelt's argument of fitting parabola to 2 points: so that the third point is 0 for g=2 ... is "proof" of tiny electron radius by assuming the thesis ... and at most criticizes electron built of 3 smaller fermions. So what experimental evidence bounding size of electron do we have?
  14. Sure, so here is the original Cabbibo electro-positron collision 1961 paper: https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.124.1577 Its formula (10) says sigma ~ \beta/E^2 ... which extrapolation to resting electron gives ~ 2fm radius. Indeed it would be great to understand corrections to potential used in Schrodinger/Dirac, especially for r~0 situations like electron capture (by nucleus), internal conversion or positronium. Standard potential V ~ 1/r goes to infinity there, to get finite electric field we need to deform it in femtometer scale
  15. Could you give some number? Article? We can naively interpret cross-section as area of particle, but the question is: cross-section for which energy should we use for this purpose? Naive extrapolation to resting electron (not Lorentz contracted) suggests ~2fm electron radius this way (which agrees with size of needed deformation of electric field not to exceed 511 keVs energy). Could you propose some different extrapolation?