“… the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one.” – Albert Einstein
“The amplituhedron is not built out of space-time and probabilities; these properties merely arise as consequences of the jewel’s geometry… Encoded in its volume are the most basic features of reality that can be calculated, “scattering amplitudes,” which represent the likelihood that a certain set of particles will turn into certain other particles upon colliding.
… The 60-year-old method for calculating scattering amplitudes — a major innovation at the time — was pioneered by the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman….“The number of Feynman diagrams is so explosively large that even computations of really simple processes weren’t done until the age of computers,” Bourjaily said….In 1986, it became apparent that Feynman’s apparatus was a Rube Goldberg machine.”
The team, which includes Dr Arkady Fedorov and Dr Matthias Baur from UQ’s ARC Centre of Excellence for Engineered Quantum Systems and the School of Mathematics and Physics, published its findings in Nature.
Dr Fedorov said the team had achieved quantum teleportation for the first time, which could lead to larger electronic networks and more functional electronic chips.
‘This is a process by which quantum information can be transmitted from one place to another without sending a physical carrier of information,’ Dr Fedorov said.
‘In this process the information just appears at the destination, almost like teleportation used in the famous science fiction series Star Trek.’”
<<If this idea turns out to be right — and that is a very big if — it could pave the way for new ways to think about our universe. If we are lucky, they might even be as revolutionary as Edwin Hubble’s, almost a century ago.>>
My take: If we can get to the place where we understand that “reality” and what we perceive as its aspects are self-organizing data/information in constant flux within an interrelational context, the question posed by this article becomes moot. The rest – including debates about direct observation versus “indirect” observation (that is, observation via instruments designed by humans for the purpose of observation and that ultimately have a human making an observation of the instruments’ observations) – is mental masturbation… as are any attempts at using human thinking to disprove human thinking.
It is (Western) linguistic determinism and material reductionism that would advance an argument otherwise and make any of this more complicated than it actually is.
“In Wineland’s lab at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, he and his colleagues take a single ionized atom of, say, beryllium and put it into a magnetic trap. There it acts a bit like a marble rolling around in a bowl. It’s on the left side of the bowl, it’s on the right, it’s in both places at once. This particular bowl is 80 nanometers wide, and the marble is a ‘wave packet’ that is all of seven nm. ‘You might argue that it isn’t really Schrodinger’s cat because it’s small,’ Wineland said. But where do you draw the line? ‘We struggle with that, because at this point there’s no way of finding that classical-quantum boundary.’”
Whether the weather be cold, Whether the weather be hot, We’ll weather the weather, Whatever the whether, Whether we like it or not…•July 30, 2012 • Leave a Comment
“It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical, says Berkeley physics Prof. Richard Muller, who still says that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. He has analyzed some of the most alarmist claims and his skepticism about them hasn’t changed.
What has changed is his doubt about the very existence of global warming. And he is now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause, he says.”