Jump to content

Duda Jarek

Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Duda Jarek

  1. This is analogy to Madelung substitution: psi = sqrt(rho) exp(iS/hbar) to Schrodinger, getting continuity equation for density rho and Hamilton-Jacobi for actions S with additional "quantum potential" corresponding to interaction with pilot wave: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory#Mathematical_formulation_for_a_single_particle
  2. The complementary principle says we can observe only one of these natures at a time - is restriction for measurement like Heisenberg. So particles have at least one of these two natures at a time, the question is if objectively they cannot have both, like observed in experiments I have linked. Or like for the walking droplets with both natures at a time: http://dualwalkers.com/statistical.html
  3. Most are pre-2015, more recent is e.g. anti-ferromagnet: https://math.mit.edu/~dunkel/Papers/2018SaEtAl_PRF.pdf But generally there more than 100 papers since 2016: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2016&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&sciodt=0,5&cites=13323743438210565407&scipsc= A week ago there was John Bush lecture and talked about some experiments, it should be available soon. Please elaborate - particle can have objectively both wave and corpuscular natures, or only one at a time ... what is the third option? For using both natures at a time, there is e.g. this Afshar experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment dBB uses both natures at a time, here is its probably most known experimental confirmation: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1170.full More recent paper observing both natures at a time: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7407 What arguments against are there?
  4. Lecture about these experiments by Yves Couder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvHREXA3cl0 By John Bush: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MsMuQa80fI Materials and great videos: http://dualwalkers.com/ More materials about hydrodynamical QM analogues: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kxvvhj0cnl1iqxr/Couder.pdf
  5. Is there a problem with this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clamp - that proteins in virus have higher energy required for fusion? Just putting mRNA into a cell, shouldn't it produce the lowest energy protein? If so, are these two configurations essentially different from anti-body perspective? Would such immune system attack infected cells and/or virus itself?
  6. https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-for-30-million-by-september-if-trial-succeeds-says-sharma-11990039
  7. https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/the-ars-covid-19-vaccine-primer-100-plus-in-the-works-8-in-clinical-trials/
  8. I see, there are many reasons China will probably be first - from 23th March: https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/news/china-covid-19-vaccine-trial-begins/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine
  9. Good discussion about covid19 vaccine development: https://www.ted.com/talks/seth_berkley_the_quest_for_the_coronavirus_vaccine A radical approach to speedup: "Should scientists infect healthy people with the coronavirus to test vaccines?": https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00927-3
  10. It is hard to tell how to interpret it, but the life cost (also economical) is just too high to allow for 18 month trials to satisfy regulations - "casualties of waiting" should be included in calculations. If being at least a bit promising and excluding toxicity, I believe massive usage will start - to test it in the field in endangered regions.
  11. https://www.jpost.com/HEALTH-SCIENCE/Israeli-scientists-In-three-weeks-we-will-have-coronavirus-vaccine-619101
  12. Time crystals first described by Frank Wilczek in 2012 have got a lot of attention, recent popular review: https://physicsworld.com/a/time-crystals-enter-the-real-world-of-condensed-matter/ If I properly understand, they would like a lowest energy state spontaneously self-organizing into a periodic process - and propose sophisticated e.g. solid state experiments, or ping-pong of Bose-Einstein condensate, which don't really seem to satisfy this defining requirement (?) But Louis De Broglie has already postulated in 1924 that with electron's mass there comes some ≈10^21 Hz intrinsic oscillation: E = mc^2 = hf = hbar ω, obtained if using E=mc^2 rest mass energy in stationary solution of Schrödinger's equation: ψ=ψ0 exp(iEt / hbar). Similar oscillations come out of solution of Dirac equation - called Zitterbewegung ("trembling motion"). Here is one of its experimental confirmation papers - by observing increased absorption when ticks of such clock agree with spatial lattice of silicon crystal target: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-008-9225-1 Electron can be created together with positron from just 2 x 511keV energy of EM field - after which it (the field?) should self-organize into these ≈10^21 Hz intrinsic oscillations. So can we call electron an example of time crystal? What other examples of lowest energy state self-organizing into periodic process are there? ps. Beside self-organization of the lowest energy state into periodic motion (I don't see they got? in contrast to electron), they alternatively want "period doubling": that system oscillating with T period, self-organizes into 2T period process - breaking discrete time symmetry (invariance to shift by T). So these popular Couders' walkers recreating many quantum phenomena in classical systems (slides with links) also have period-doubling (can they be classified as time crystals?) - here is such plot from this paper, horizontal axis is time, lower periodic process is for liquid surface - externally enforced by some shaker, upper periodic process shows droplet trajectory - self organizing into twice larger period than enforced: But generally it seems very valuable to find analogies between spatial and temporal phenomena like crystals here. Great tool for that is Ising model: Boltzmann ensemble among spatial sequences, what mathematically is very similar to Feynman path (temporal) ensemble of QM - using this mathematical similarity, for Ising model we get Born rule, Bell violation, or analogues of quantum computers. What other phenomena can be translated between spatial and temporal dimensions?
  13. Imperial Collage predictions for UK - to save lives with vaccine, it would be needed by November: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/196234/covid19-imperial-researchers-model-likely-impact/
  14. Interesting, if I properly understand, there are two forms of the virus membrane proteins: the pre-fusion ones in virus have stored energy to enable fusion with cell membrane, the post-fusion in infected cell have lower energy ... and the problem is that they are a bit different from perspective of antibodies. While it is much easier to produce the lower energy form, vaccine based on it would not protect against free virus, only would allow to mark the infected cells - these molecular clamp polypeptides are claimed to allow to produce pre-fusion ones. It is aminoacid sequence self-assembling into double helix rod-like structure ... I don't understand how it can help forming meta-stable higher energy protein forms? I see that this higher energy meta-stable form is originally prepared in ER membrane, somehow encapsulated from inside - from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus : ps. It is usually assumed that there are nearly no ribosomes in cytosol (?) - that some viruses have these complex capsides e.g. using pH difference to get into the nucleus ... so is the above diagram correct, or does coronavirus RNA have to get to ER or nucleus first? Update: ok, it seems there are free ribosomes in cytosol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosome#Free_ribosomes So the most questionable part in this Moderna vaccine - just mRNA if I properly understand (?), is getting it into a cell: So can free mRNA get into a cell? But generally it could only give this weaker (?) post-fusion protection (assuming they go also to external membrane - not only ER suggested by diagram above) ... and could be also made by just putting these proteins on a liposome - I have started this thread with. A related idea is just putting ACE2 on liposome - getting a trap for this virus, it couldn't resist with mutations ... ps2: Also, the diagram above suggests that fusion requires binding with multiple ACE2 receptors, hence their concentration is a critical parameter ... which is said to be modulated by some common medicines used e.g. by high blood pressure and diabetic patients - suggesting a hypothesis that this might be a reason for increased mortality for them. Good lecture with commentary:
  15. Unfortunately we are no longer talking about a hypothetical situation from some utilitarianism economy textbook, but about a real one with daily deaths in thousands. Balancing medical trials, these deaths can be seen as casualties of waiting. mRNA is rather less toxic than the actual virus. If such vaccine would be e.g. toxic for elderly, applied to the young ones it could build a herd immunity (better than Johnson's way) - there are many ways to optimize the "economy of waiting" for the main priority here: minimization of the number of deaths. Anyway, there are probably ongoing dozens of trials to get a vaccine, in various regulatory environment (like China) - I believe that before November there will be widely used some vaccine, at least as phase III trial on millions in potentially endangered regions.
  16. They skipped animal trials so maybe it could be quickened, especially that this is just injecting mRNA ... and that Trump wants vaccine before November elections. Personally I would gladly volunteer to such trials if having an opportunity - in current situation of likely soon being infected with the real virus.
  17. Schrödinger equation assumes existence of wavefunction (realism), is defined by using values and derivatives - how does it differ from locality? So does it satisfy assumptions of Bell theorem - leading to inequalities which are violated by physics? If you solve it with Feynman path integrals instead, this issues vanishes as we have kind of two hidden variables (amplitudes): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_vector_formalism It is visualized in the last slide here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/m1m8uq0gygo2lzt/Ising.pdf : The bottom right is looking simple but thought provoking question: what stationary probability distribution on [0,1] should we expect? Any diffusion, chaos says uniform rho=1 ... QM says localized rho ~ sin^2. Uni-directional uniform path ensemble gives rho ~ sin ... finally symmetric ensemble of complete paths gives required sin^2.
  18. From today: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/16/first-participant-us-coronavirus-vaccine-trial-moderna-dose
  19. "Researchers rush to test coronavirus vaccine in people without knowing how well it works in animals" https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/11/researchers-rush-to-start-moderna-coronavirus-vaccine-trial-without-usual-animal-testing/ Good video about mechanisms of COVID-19: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eeh054-Hx1U
  20. No, there is no superlaminal information exchange in EM, GR, or field theories I have considered. The goal of this thread was not solitons or virtual particles (separate topics), but to discuss a different possibility not to satisfy type of locality used in derivation of Bell inequality: by solving these models in symmetric way: through the least action principle, Feynman path/diagram ensembles. I was told by Richard Gill that it does not satisfy "no-conspiracy" hidden assumption - what agrees with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_definiteness : " no conspiracy (called also "asymmetry of time")". While we could transform such solution to asymmetric picture: of Euler-Lagrange or Schrodinger, symmetric ways lead to solutions with different properties - due to using symmetric boundary conditions: in past and future. It is nicely seen in Ising model which is mathematically nearly the same (Feynman -> Boltzmann path ensemble), using more intuitive: spatial instead of temporal symmetry to get Born rule. For example probability distribution of value inside Ising sequence is Pr(i) = (psi_i)^2 due to symmetry: one amplitude comes from left, second from right. Sketch of derivation: Once again, by symmetry I mean time/CPT symmetry here: solving using the least action principle, path/diagram ensembles - please just think about finding probability distribution inside Ising model, e.g. in sketch of derivation above. I also don't like philosophy talk. To reduce the number of philosophical ambiguous assumptions in Bell theorem, I prefer to focus on simpler Mermin's - for 3 binary variables ABC: Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) >= 1 which is nearly "tossing 3 coins, at least 2 are equal". Its derivation doesn't need any ambiguous "locality", "realism", just "there exists Pr(ABC) probability distribution" assumption: Pr(A=B) = P(000) + P(001) + P(110) + P(111) Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) = 2P(000) + 2P(111) +sum_ABC P(ABC) = 2P(000) + 2P(111) + 1 >= 1 But this inequality is violated in QM formalism ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.5214 ) . It has only one trivial assumption: "there exists Pr(ABC) probability distribution" leads to Bell inequalities, which are violated by physics - hence somehow this assumption is non-physical. And Ising model is a nice toymodel to understand how this assumption might not be satisfied: states are defined there with amplitudes on Omega instead of probabilities - to get probabilities we need to add over unmeasured variables, then multiply (Born rule). Exactly, all these considered field theories are Lorentz invariant, what already for sine-Gordon gives all special relativity effects, like scaling of mass/momentum, Lorentz invariance, and even time dilation for oscillating breathers ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breather ) - their number of 'ticks' is reduced with velocity: If someone wants to understand special relativity, the best way is studying sine-Gordon.
  21. It starts much earlier, e.g. with 1D sine-Gordon model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine-Gordon_equation Here is kink-antikink annihilation ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_defect ) - their rest energy (mass) is released as massless excitations: Playing it backward we get pair creation - which is a continuous process: we can perform lower energy perturbation in this direction, what in perturbative QFT perspective would be virtual pair creation. ps. nice "rubber band universe model" video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl5Qq5kUbEE
  22. Here is one of Faber's paper: http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ahep/2017/9340516.pdf Here in Fig. 4 is energy of electron-positron pair in his model for various distances - asymptotically Coulomb, deformed in tiny distances (running coupling): http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012022/pdf
  23. The soliton particle models I consider are based on Faber's model: repairing Maxwells' equations: to have built-in charge quantization (by using Gauss-Bonnet theorem as Gauss law - integrating field's curvature it gives topological charge inside: which has to be integer) and regularization of charge's electric field to finite energy (by using Higgs'-like potential allowing to deform electromagnetism into other interactions to prevent infinite energy in centers of particles). Anyway, this is just Lagrangian mechanics, which becomes Maxwell's equations in vacuum (far from particles) - it has all conservation laws including Noether: of energy, momentum and angular momentum. Performing second quantization we should get ~QED which might not require renormalization as electric field of charge has already finite energy here. This regularization also has running coupling - deformations of Coulomb for very close particles. Virtual particle is something different for topological solitons (like fluxons) - look at creation of minus-plus topological charge at the bottom of: Imagining it is electron-positron pair creation, the right hand side configuration uses fully formed particles: requires at least 2 x 511keV energy. But generally this pair creation process is continuous - the left hand side configuration might require much less energy. We can imagine e.g. vacuum polarization this way: brief fluctuations toward such left-most configuration ... in Feynman diagram representation it would be virtual pair creation, such brief fluctuation would not require entire 2 x 511keVs.
  24. Mordred, once again - this was supposed to be Bell theorem thread, e.g. if it also disproves Lagrangian formalism models like EM, GR, QFT - which are realistic and local. But sure, I know especially perturbative QFT, and it is a very universal formalism - e.g. phonons are mechanical waves/distortions of atomic lattice, but QFT allows to treat them as real particles. Soliton models are in classical field theories, there is also performed second quantization for them. From other perspective, considering scattering of solitons, we need to consider various possible scenarios (e.g. kink-antikink pair creation): ensemble of Feynman diagrams from perturbative QFT. As QFT is generally built on classical field theory (e.g. EM -> QED), we should be able to understand fields corresponding to each Feynman diagram, like E ~1/r^2 around charged particles - I am only saying that we can also try to understand field for virtual particles, like in the bottom-left of soliton diagram above: just start of continuous process of pair creation.
  25. Born-like formulas from symmetry in Ising model (Boltzmann sequence ensemble): Pr(i)=(ψ_i)^2 where one amplitude ("hidden variable") comes from left, second from right:
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.