Theoretical physicists – Polkinghorne http://polkinghorne.org/ Sat, 05 Feb 2022 20:10:02 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.9.3 https://polkinghorne.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/icon-2022-01-25T202759.511-150x150.png Theoretical physicists – Polkinghorne http://polkinghorne.org/ 32 32 Black holes are giant furballs, say theoretical physicists https://polkinghorne.org/black-holes-are-giant-furballs-say-theoretical-physicists/ Wed, 05 Jan 2022 08:00:00 +0000 https://polkinghorne.org/black-holes-are-giant-furballs-say-theoretical-physicists/ In 1997, cosmologists Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne and John Preskill do a famous bet on whether the information that enters a black hole ceases to exist. Hawking and Thorne bet that information that enters a black hole is destroyed, while Preskill took the opposite view. Hawking’s research suggested that the particles have no effect. But […]]]>

In 1997, cosmologists Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne and John Preskill do a famous bet on whether the information that enters a black hole ceases to exist. Hawking and Thorne bet that information that enters a black hole is destroyed, while Preskill took the opposite view. Hawking’s research suggested that the particles have no effect. But his theory violated the laws of quantum mechanics and created a contradiction known as the information paradox. New research by physicists from the Department of Physics at Ohio State University attempts to resolve the debate over Hawking’s information paradox.

Guo et al. confirm answers to Stephen Hawking’s black hole information paradox. Image credit: Sci-News.com.

“What we discovered from string theory is that not all of the mass of a black hole is sucked towards the center,” said Professor Samir Mathur of Ohio State University, author main of a paper published in the Turkish Journal of Physics.

“The black hole tries to squeeze things up to a certain point, but then the particles stretch into these strings, and the strings start to stretch and expand and it becomes this ball of fur that expands to fill the entire black hole.”

“We found that string theory almost certainly holds the answer to Hawking’s paradox, as they originally believed.”

“We proved theorems to show that fuzzy ball theory remains the most likely solution for Hawking’s information paradox.”

In 2004, Professor Mathur and his colleagues theorized that black holes looked like very large, very messy balls of yarn – “hairballs” – that get bigger and messier as new objects are sucked in.

“The bigger the black hole, the more energy that enters it and the bigger the fuzzy ball becomes,” Professor Mathur said.

Physicists have discovered that string theory could be the solution to Hawking’s paradox. With this fuzzball structure, the hole radiates like any normal body, and there is no jigsaw.

“After the study and other work, a lot of people thought the problem was solved,” Prof Mathur said.

“But in fact, part of the string theory community itself thought they would be looking for a different solution to Hawking’s information paradox.”

“They were embarrassed that, in physical terms, the whole structure of the black hole had changed.”

Studies in recent years have attempted to reconcile Hawking’s findings with the old picture of the hole, where the black hole can be thought of as empty space with all its mass in the center.

One theory, the wormhole paradigm, has suggested that black holes could be one end of a bridge in the space-time continuum, meaning anything that enters a black hole could appear at the other end. of the bridge – the other end of the wormhole – in a different place in space and time.

For the wormhole picture to work, however, low-energy radiation would have to escape from the black hole at its edges.

The new study proved a theorem – the “small effective correction theorem” – to show that if this were to happen, black holes would not appear to radiate as they do.

The authors also looked at the physical properties of black holes, including changing quantum gravity topology, to determine if the wormhole paradigm would work.

“In each of the versions that have been proposed for the wormhole approach, we found that the physics were not consistent,” Professor Mathur said.

“The wormhole paradigm tries to argue that in some way you can always think of the black hole as actually empty with all the mass in the center.”

“And the theorems we are proving show that such a picture of the hole is not a possibility.”

_____

Bin Guo et al. 2021. Contrasting Fuzzy Ball and Wormhole Paradigms for Black Holes. Turkish J Phys 45:281-365; doi: 10.3906/2111-13

]]>
Theoretical physicists think humans are screwing up the blueprint of the universe https://polkinghorne.org/theoretical-physicists-think-humans-are-screwing-up-the-blueprint-of-the-universe/ Tue, 28 Dec 2021 08:00:00 +0000 https://polkinghorne.org/theoretical-physicists-think-humans-are-screwing-up-the-blueprint-of-the-universe/ The universe began with a Big Bang. Everything that was ever going to be anything was compacted into a little ball of anything, then it exploded outward and the universe began to expand. At least, that’s one way of looking at it. Corn emerging new theories and age-old philosophical claims are beginning to gain a […]]]>

The universe began with a Big Bang. Everything that was ever going to be anything was compacted into a little ball of anything, then it exploded outward and the universe began to expand.

At least, that’s one way of looking at it. Corn emerging new theories and age-old philosophical claims are beginning to gain a foothold in cutting-edge research in quantum physics. And it’s starting to look more and more like we might be the center of the universe after all.

This does not mean that the Earth or the Milky Way is at the geographic center of the universe. It would be arrogant to make such a literal assumption.

I say humans are the figurative center of the universe. Because, theoretically, we are gods.

create reality

It is a two-part. We must first establish that the universe is conscious. This may not be the case, but for the sake of argument, let’s say we agree with the growing number of scientists supporting the theory.

Here is a quote I found in The mind matters that explains it well. This is from Tim Andersen of Georgia Tech, a quantum physics researcher:

The key to understanding Will is to examine our own sense of consciousness. We have, in a sense, two levels of consciousness. The first is experience. We experience the color and smell of a flower. Therefore, we are aware of it. The second is that we are aware of it. It is a meta-consciousness that we sometimes call reflection. I reflect on my awareness of the flower.

Andersen refers to “willpower” as an underlying force in the universe that is analogous to consciousness.

The main thing is that everything is capable of experience. If you kick a rock, it experiences force, speed and gravity. He cannot reflect on these experiences and therefore the rock itself is able to change nothing on its own.

It is aware because it exists. And, because it doesn’t exist. It’s not actually a rock, but a bunch of molecules smashed together. And they’re not really molecules. They are particles crushed together. And so on.

Eventually you get to the quantum version of bedrock, and the entire universe is just an infinite amount of much the same as it was at the exact moment before the Big Bang happened.

When a rock is not a rock

So our rock is a rock, but it’s not a rock either because we can clearly see that it’s just regular universe material if you look closely enough. A tree, a rock, a Volvo, an AI journalist named Tristan: there isn’t much difference between these “things” in the quantum realm.

It’s a bit like Minecraft. No matter what you build, it’s just ones and zeros on a computer chip.

Here’s where things get cool. The rock, for some reason, does not seem to experience secondary consciousness. As Andersen explains, the rock cannot reflect on its experience.

But humans can. Not only can we experience, for example, falling, but we can also reflect on that experience and create change based on that reflection.

What’s even more interesting, from a cosmic perspective, is that we can internalize the experiences of other humans and use them to inform our decision-making. We are able to reflect on the thoughts of others.

This implies that human free will is the only known entity in the universe capable of bringing about change based on conscious reflection.

The rock can never choose not to fall, but humans can. We can even choose to fly instead.

A post-human universe

The result of our existence is that the whole trajectory of the universe is potentially modified. Whatever the particles of the universe were going to do before the emergence of humanity, their course has been changed.

Who knows what changes we’ve made to the cosmos. We’ve only been around a few million years and our planet already looks like a brotherhood after a kegger.

What will the galaxy look like when we can travel to its edges in months or weeks? What happens when we can traverse the universe?

It’s possible there’s a clever creator out there laughing right now. Or perhaps the “plan” of the universe has always included the creation and evolution of humans.

But the evidence, of which it is true that there is very little, says the opposite.

Quantum physics is a strong argument for universal consciousness, and if so, it is difficult to define human experience without separating out what is capable of “thinking” from what is uniquely capable of ” experience”.

If it turns out that we are the only entities capable of producing a secondary reality from universal consciousness, well, that would be something.

i’m not saying that you are the GodI’m just pointing out that you are the one thing in the entire universe that we can show as evidence of free will and the ability to reflect on one’s experiences.

Perhaps our ability to reflect on consciousness itself is what allows us experiential reality manifest. We think, therefore all is.

Further reading:

New Research Tries To Explain Consciousness With… Quantum Physics

Scientists may have found the missing link between brain matter and consciousness

New brain research from MIT shows how AI could help us understand consciousness.

]]>
Have we just discovered new physics? These theoretical physicists don’t think so https://polkinghorne.org/have-we-just-discovered-new-physics-these-theoretical-physicists-dont-think-so/ Mon, 12 Apr 2021 07:00:00 +0000 https://polkinghorne.org/have-we-just-discovered-new-physics-these-theoretical-physicists-dont-think-so/ When the results of an experiment don’t match the predictions made by the best theory of the day, something is wrong. Fifteen years ago, physicists from Brookhaven National Laboratory discovered something puzzling. Muons – a type of subatomic particle – were moving in unexpected ways that did not match theoretical predictions. Was the theory wrong? […]]]>

When the results of an experiment don’t match the predictions made by the best theory of the day, something is wrong.

Fifteen years ago, physicists from Brookhaven National Laboratory discovered something puzzling. Muons – a type of subatomic particle – were moving in unexpected ways that did not match theoretical predictions. Was the theory wrong? Was the experiment interrupted? Or, temptingly, was this evidence of new physics?

Since then, physicists have been trying to solve this mystery.

A group of Fermilab addressed the experimental component and on April 7, 2021, published the results confirming the original measurement. But my colleagues and I took a different approach.

I am a theoretical physicist and the spokesperson and one of the two coordinators of the Budapest-Marseille-Wuppertal partnership. This is a large-scale collaboration of physicists who tried to see if the old theoretical prediction was incorrect. We used a new method to calculate how muons interact with magnetic fields.

My team’s theoretical prediction is different from the original theory and matches both old experimental evidence and new Fermilab data. If our calculation is correct, it resolves the gap between theory and experiment and would suggest that there is not an undiscovered force of nature.

Our result was published in the journal Nature on April 7, 2021, the same day as the new experimental results.