Image Credit: science photo / Shutterstock.com

If adeviceis small enough to be powered, with corresponding small energy demands, there is the possibility of providing it with energy without the use of batteries and wires via what would ordinarily be considered waste energyheat.

Research into the generation of electricity from heatthermoelectric generationhas sofar centered around the Seebeck effect, a significantly limited phenomenon that allows the build-up of an electric potential across a temperature gradient.

Alternative new research from the University of Tokyo Institute for Solid State Physics and Department of Physics, published in the journal Nature, suggests employing a less well-known phenomenon to perform the same task, the Anomalous Nernst Effect (ANE).

The teams research is founded upon the use of a mostly iron-based material thin enough to be molded into various forms. The beauty of a thermoelectric generator made from this material is the elements non-toxic nature, cheapness, and abundance.

In theNature paper, the team from the University of Tokyo led by Research Associate Akito Sakai, and Professor Ryotaro Arita, discuss the use of a process called dopingthe intentional addition of impurities to a semiconductor to adjust its electrical, optical, or structural propertiesto create a material that is 75% iron, and 25% aluminum or gallium.

The flexible film-like material has applicability to devices with small energy requirements, such as wearable technology and remote sensors. Wearable remote sensors are currently a heavily researched area of technology due to the advantages they provide in medical science, both for clinical trials and the treatment of patients.

The company MC10 is just one of a wide range of biotech suppliers marketing products that would greatly benefit from the use of thin thermoelectric generators. The companys BioStamp Research Connect systemone of the first wearable bioelectric tattooscollects physiological information such as vital signs, posture, and activity from a patient and delivers it to doctors and researchers via a cloud-based storage software.

Conducting clinical studies with wearable or remote biosensors and mobile health platforms enables researchers to obtain a detailed, real-world understanding of the patients physiology, behavior, and response to treatment. Thinner, more flexible thermoelectric generators could serve to make this technology more discrete and less-intrusive,allowing researchers to obtain a more accurate picture of a patients behavior.

A cheaper material reducing overall production costs would, in turn, make wider studies more feasible for clinical trials, as well as allowing doctors to remotely monitor more patients than ever before.

This is not the first time that the team from the University of Tokyo has experimented with ANE-based generators. Thematerials previously used have been difficult to source and are prohibitively expensive.

The team has been aware for some time thatto reap the benefits of an ANE-based generatornamely large-area and flexible coverage of a heat-sourcesignificant improvements to the system had to be made in both the materials performance and itssafety and stability.

The researchers say that the use ofiron-based film-like material significantly boosts the effectiveness of ANE, producing an astounding twenty-time increase in the voltage perpendicular to the direction of a temperature gradient across the surface of the material.

The result is thin and more flexible materials that harvest energy rather than relying on heavy and chunky batteries. The resultant generators are also more efficient at energy harvest than generators based upon the Seeback effect. This could potentially result in thermoelectric technology supplying power to devices in locations and with applications where a battery would be deeply impractical.

The ANE effect arises from what is known as the Berry curvature of the electrons near to a value of energy referred to as the Fermi energy. The team used computer simulations to design a large Berry curvature which pointed them to the right doping concentrations for the ideal material for their requirements.

The teams research has mostly focused on computer simulations and numerical calculations,which reduced the need for time-consuming and expensive repeated experimentation.

Click here for more information on nanotechnology equipment.

The advantage of using computer simulations is that it allows the researchers to switch between various materials and compositions to find the best mix for their needs. They were also able to significantly cut down the amount of time that materials scientists would usually spend analyzing electronic structures called nodal webs by starting from the first principles established by quantum mechanics.

Essentially this means that the material created by the team is not the only revolutionary aspect of the teams researchthe numerical methods and computational techniques they have pioneered replace previous methods that have been prohibitively difficult to undertake. Thus, the team has developed a framework that can be used by other scientists to develop materials specially adapted to specific requirements.

Sakai, A., Minami, S., Koretsune, T., et al., [2020], Iron-based binary ferromagnets for transverse thermoelectric conversion, Nature, [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2230-z].

Kalali, A., Richerson, S., Ouzunova, E., et al., [2019], Digital Biomarkers in Clinical Drug Development, Handbook of Behavioral Neuroscience, Volume 29, Pages 229238, [https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803161-2.00016-3].

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author expressed in their private capacity and do not necessarily represent the views of AZoM.com Limited T/A AZoNetwork the owner and operator of this website. This disclaimer forms part of the Terms and conditions of use of this website.

Continued here:

Iron-Based Material has the Ability to Power Small Devices - AZoNano

Quantum mechanics is the branch of physics relating to the very small.

It results in what may appear to be some very strange conclusions about the physical world. At the scale of atoms and electrons, many of the equations ofclassical mechanics, which describe how things move at everyday sizes and speeds, cease to be useful. In classical mechanics, objects exist in a specific place at a specific time. However, in quantum mechanics, objects instead exist in a haze of probability; they have a certain chance of being at point A, another chance of being at point B and so on.

Quantum mechanics (QM) developed over many decades, beginning as a set of controversial mathematical explanations of experiments that the math of classical mechanics could not explain. It began at the turn of the 20th century, around the same time that Albert Einstein published histheory of relativity, a separate mathematical revolution in physics that describes the motion of things at high speeds. Unlike relativity, however, the origins of QM cannot be attributed to any one scientist. Rather, multiple scientists contributed to a foundation of three revolutionary principles that gradually gained acceptance and experimental verification between 1900 and 1930. They are:

Quantized properties: Certain properties, such as position, speed and color, can sometimes only occur in specific, set amounts, much like a dial that "clicks" from number to number. This challenged a fundamental assumption of classical mechanics, which said that such properties should exist on a smooth, continuous spectrum. To describe the idea that some properties "clicked" like a dial with specific settings, scientists coined the word "quantized."

Particles of light: Light can sometimes behave as a particle. This was initially met with harsh criticism, as it ran contrary to 200 years of experiments showing that light behaved as a wave; much like ripples on the surface of a calm lake. Light behaves similarly in that it bounces off walls and bends around corners, and that the crests and troughs of the wave can add up or cancel out. Added wave crests result in brighter light, while waves that cancel out produce darkness. A light source can be thought of as a ball on a stick beingrhythmically dipped in the center of a lake. The color emitted corresponds to the distance between the crests, which is determined by the speed of the ball's rhythm.

Waves of matter: Matter can also behave as a wave. This ran counter to the roughly 30 years of experiments showing that matter (such as electrons) exists as particles.

In 1900, German physicist Max Planck sought to explain the distribution of colors emitted over the spectrum in the glow of red-hot and white-hot objects, such as light-bulb filaments. When making physical sense of the equation he had derived to describe this distribution, Planck realized it implied that combinations of only certaincolors(albeit a great number of them) were emitted, specifically those that were whole-number multiples of some base value. Somehow, colors were quantized! This was unexpected because light was understood to act as a wave, meaning that values of color should be a continuous spectrum. What could be forbiddingatomsfrom producing the colors between these whole-number multiples? This seemed so strange that Planck regarded quantization as nothing more than a mathematical trick. According to Helge Kragh in his 2000 article in Physics World magazine, "Max Planck, the Reluctant Revolutionary," "If a revolution occurred in physics in December 1900, nobody seemed to notice it. Planck was no exception "

Planck's equation also contained a number that would later become very important to future development of QM; today, it's known as "Planck's Constant."

Quantization helped to explain other mysteries of physics. In 1907, Einstein used Planck's hypothesis of quantization to explain why the temperature of a solid changed by different amounts if you put the same amount of heat into the material but changed the starting temperature.

Since the early 1800s, the science ofspectroscopyhad shown that different elements emit and absorb specific colors of light called "spectral lines." Though spectroscopy was a reliable method for determining the elements contained in objects such as distant stars, scientists were puzzled aboutwhyeach element gave off those specific lines in the first place. In 1888, Johannes Rydberg derived an equation that described the spectral lines emitted by hydrogen, though nobody could explain why the equation worked. This changed in 1913 whenNiels Bohrapplied Planck's hypothesis of quantization to Ernest Rutherford's 1911 "planetary" model of the atom, which postulated that electrons orbited the nucleus the same way that planets orbit the sun. According toPhysics 2000(a site from the University of Colorado), Bohr proposed that electrons were restricted to "special" orbits around an atom's nucleus. They could "jump" between special orbits, and the energy produced by the jump caused specific colors of light, observed as spectral lines. Though quantized properties were invented as but a mere mathematical trick, they explained so much that they became the founding principle of QM.

In 1905, Einstein published a paper, "Concerning an Heuristic Point of View Toward the Emission and Transformation of Light," in which he envisioned light traveling not as a wave, but as some manner of "energy quanta." This packet of energy, Einstein suggested, could "be absorbed or generated only as a whole," specifically when an atom "jumps" between quantized vibration rates. This would also apply, as would be shown a few years later, when an electron "jumps" between quantized orbits. Under this model, Einstein's "energy quanta" contained the energy difference of the jump; when divided by Plancks constant, that energy difference determined the color of light carried by those quanta.

With this new way to envision light, Einstein offered insights into the behavior of nine different phenomena, including the specific colors that Planck described being emitted from a light-bulb filament. It also explained how certain colors of light could eject electrons off metal surfaces, a phenomenon known as the "photoelectric effect." However, Einstein wasn't wholly justified in taking this leap, said Stephen Klassen, an associate professor of physics at the University of Winnipeg. In a 2008 paper, "The Photoelectric Effect: Rehabilitating the Story for the Physics Classroom," Klassen states that Einstein's energy quanta aren't necessary for explaining all of those nine phenomena. Certain mathematical treatments of light as a wave are still capable of describing both the specific colors that Planck described being emitted from a light-bulb filament and the photoelectric effect. Indeed, in Einstein's controversial winning of the 1921Nobel Prize, the Nobel committee only acknowledged "his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect," which specifically did not rely on the notion of energy quanta.

Roughly two decades after Einstein's paper, the term "photon" was popularized for describing energy quanta, thanks to the 1923 work of Arthur Compton, who showed that light scattered by an electron beam changed in color. This showed that particles of light (photons) were indeed colliding with particles of matter (electrons), thus confirming Einstein's hypothesis. By now, it was clear that light could behave both as a wave and a particle, placing light's "wave-particle duality" into the foundation of QM.

Since the discovery of the electron in 1896, evidence that all matter existed in the form of particles was slowly building. Still, the demonstration of light's wave-particle duality made scientists question whether matter was limited to actingonlyas particles. Perhaps wave-particle duality could ring true for matter as well? The first scientist to make substantial headway with this reasoning was a French physicist named Louis de Broglie. In 1924, de Broglie used the equations of Einstein'stheory of special relativityto show that particles can exhibit wave-like characteristics, and that waves can exhibit particle-like characteristics. Then in 1925, two scientists, working independently and using separate lines of mathematical thinking, applied de Broglie's reasoning to explain how electrons whizzed around in atoms (a phenomenon that was unexplainable using the equations ofclassical mechanics). In Germany, physicist Werner Heisenberg (teaming with Max Born and Pascual Jordan) accomplished this by developing "matrix mechanics." Austrian physicist ErwinSchrdingerdeveloped a similar theory called "wave mechanics." Schrdinger showed in 1926 that these two approaches were equivalent (though Swiss physicist Wolfgang Pauli sent anunpublished resultto Jordan showing that matrix mechanics was more complete).

The Heisenberg-Schrdinger model of the atom, in which each electron acts as a wave (sometimes referred to as a "cloud") around the nucleus of an atom replaced the Rutherford-Bohr model. One stipulation of the new model was that the ends of the wave that forms an electron must meet. In "Quantum Mechanics in Chemistry, 3rd Ed." (W.A. Benjamin, 1981), Melvin Hanna writes, "The imposition of the boundary conditions has restricted the energy to discrete values." A consequence of this stipulation is that only whole numbers of crests and troughs are allowed, which explains why some properties are quantized. In the Heisenberg-Schrdinger model of the atom, electrons obey a "wave function" and occupy "orbitals" rather than orbits. Unlike the circular orbits of the Rutherford-Bohr model, atomic orbitals have a variety of shapes ranging from spheres to dumbbells to daisies.

In 1927, Walter Heitler and Fritz London further developed wave mechanics to show how atomic orbitals could combine to form molecular orbitals, effectively showing why atoms bond to one another to formmolecules. This was yet another problem that had been unsolvable using the math of classical mechanics. These insights gave rise to the field of "quantum chemistry."

Also in 1927, Heisenberg made another major contribution to quantum physics. He reasoned that since matter acts as waves, some properties, such as an electron's position and speed, are "complementary," meaning there's a limit (related to Planck's constant) to how well the precision of each property can be known. Under what would come to be called "Heisenberg'suncertainty principle," it was reasoned that the more precisely an electron's position is known, the less precisely its speed can be known, and vice versa. This uncertainty principle applies to everyday-size objects as well, but is not noticeable because the lack of precision is extraordinarily tiny. According to Dave Slaven of Morningside College (Sioux City, IA), if a baseball's speed is known to within aprecision of 0.1 mph, the maximum precision to which it is possible to know the ball's position is 0.000000000000000000000000000008 millimeters.

The principles of quantization, wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle ushered in a new era for QM. In 1927, Paul Dirac applied a quantum understanding of electric and magnetic fields to give rise to the study of "quantum field theory" (QFT), which treated particles (such as photons and electrons) as excited states of an underlying physical field. Work in QFT continued for a decade until scientists hit a roadblock: Many equations in QFT stopped making physical sense because they produced results of infinity. After a decade of stagnation, Hans Bethe made a breakthrough in 1947 using a technique called "renormalization." Here, Bethe realized that all infinite results related to two phenomena (specifically "electron self-energy" and "vacuum polarization") such that the observed values of electron mass and electron charge could be used to make all the infinities disappear.

Since the breakthrough of renormalization, QFT has served as the foundation for developing quantum theories about the four fundamental forces of nature: 1) electromagnetism, 2) the weak nuclear force, 3) the strong nuclear force and 4) gravity. The first insight provided by QFT was a quantum description of electromagnetism through "quantum electrodynamics" (QED), which made strides in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Next was a quantum description of the weak nuclear force, which was unified with electromagnetism to build "electroweak theory" (EWT) throughout the 1960s. Finally came a quantum treatment of the strong nuclear force using "quantum chromodynamics" (QCD) in the 1960s and 1970s. The theories of QED, EWT and QCD together form the basis of theStandard Modelof particle physics. Unfortunately, QFT has yet to produce a quantum theory of gravity. That quest continues today in the studies of string theory and loop quantum gravity.

Robert Coolman is a graduate researcher at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, finishing up his Ph.D. in chemical engineering. He writes about math, science and how they interact with history. Follow Robert@PrimeViridian. Followus@LiveScience,Facebook&Google+.

Read more:

What Is Quantum Mechanics? Quantum Physics Defined ...

MELVILLE, N.Y., May 6, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --Two early career researchers have been announced as the winners of the inaugural Best Paper by an Emerging Investigator Award by The Journal of Chemical Physics (JCP), a publication of AIP Publishing.

Original research from Jeremy O. Richardson and Sandeep Sharma was selected by a selection committee composed of Editorial Advisory Board members from the pool of papers included in the highly selective 2019 JCP Emerging Investigators Special Collection. Richardson and Sharma were awarded $2,000 each and invited to write a Perspective article on their field for publication by The Journal of Chemical Physics.

Qualifying submissions have a principal investigator within 10 years of their graduate degree graduation date and encompass the entire scope of the journal. Submissions are currently open for the 2020 JCP Emerging Investigators Special Collection.

Jeremy O. Richardson

Jeremy O. Richardson was born in Cardiff, Wales, and holds a doctorate in chemistry from the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom.

Throughout most of his scientific career, Richardson's research focus has been on studying molecular systems at the intersection of the classical and quantum limits. Molecules behave according to the laws of quantum mechanics, but these laws are difficult to model in computational algorithms. One way to overcome this is to ignore the quantum effects and simply simulate molecules using classical mechanics. Though efficient, this method introduces additional errors in calculations.

"My research attempts to find a compromise between these two alternatives, which we call semiclassical because they are halfway between classical and quantum in both accuracy and efficiency," said Richardson.

In the winning paper, "Instanton formulation of Fermi's golden rule in the Marcus inverted regime," which was published in The Journal of Chemical Physicson Jan. 17, 2020, Richardson and his graduate student Eric R. Heller extended the semiclassical instanton theory to calculate quantum tunneling effects in electron-transfer reactions in the Marcus inverted regime. Though tunneling is known to be an important quantum effect that allows for reactions that are energetically prohibited classically, it had been previously ignored within Marcus theory, which explains electron transfer reaction rates. A reconciliation between the two was thought to be impossible in this regime.

"This manuscript sheds interesting new light on the quantum mechanics of electron transfer in the Marcus inverted regime, where tunneling through the reaction barrier can enhance the rate of an electron transfer reaction by orders of magnitude," according to a JCP editor.

Though the paper currently serves as a proof-of-concept, the researchers plan to use their method to study to more complicated systems.

"Eric and I are delighted to have received this recognition of our work and hope that interested readers will suggest exciting applications for our new method," Richardson said.

Sandeep Sharma

Sandeep Sharma was born in Mumbai, India, and received his doctorate in chemical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He focused on understanding the combustion and formation processes of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, the precursors to soot. Since then, his primary attention has shifted toward developing methods for calculating electronic structure theory of correlated systems.

In his winning paper, "Multireference configuration interaction and perturbation theory without reduced density matrices," which was published in The Journal of Chemical Physicson Dec. 2, 2019, Sharma and his collaborators overcame the bottleneck of prohibitively expensive calculation and memory requirements for solving the Schrdinger equation for large, complex systems of transition metal atoms. Because it is impossible to determine exact solutions for such arbitrarily complex systems, the best-case scenario is to develop a heuristic approach, consisting of a family of algorithms, each of which works on a subset of the larger system.

"The accurate calculation of electronic structure is very difficult in large, strongly correlated systems. To treat such situations, a suite of so-called 'multireference' techniques have been developed, but these approaches are costly and difficult to use for large systems," said a JCP editor. "The authors devise a stochastic means to circumvent a major bottleneck in two paradigmatic types of these established approaches, paving the way for a more facile accurate treatment of large-scale strongly correlated problems."

The work demonstrates that a class of methods previously limited to smaller molecules can be extended into more complicated systems, serving as a step toward the best-case scenario. By manipulating the equations in just the right way, the researchers transformed a single, expensive step into a series of tiny, cheap calculations.

"I am very pleased to receive this award," he said. "I have read with great interest the papers that were published in this issue, some of which were written by colleagues and friends that I know and respect, so it was all the more gratifying when the editors of The Journal of Chemical Physicstold me that my work was selected."

ABOUT THE JOURNAL

The Journal of Chemical Physicsis an international journal that publishes cutting edge research in all areas of modern physical chemistry and chemical physics. See https://aip.scitation.org/journal/jcp

ABOUT THE AWARD

The Journal of Chemical Physicsis committed to recognizing the excellent work of early career investigators. We are therefore proud to present the JCP Emerging Investigators Special Collection and the accompanying JCP Best Paper by an Emerging Investigator Awards. A subcommittee of the JCP Editorial Advisory Board, not journal editors, choose two winners from among the papers accepted to the special collection.

ABOUT AIP PUBLISHING

AIP Publishing is a wholly owned not-for-profit subsidiary of the American Institute of Physics (AIP). AIP Publishing's mission is to support the charitable, scientific and educational purposes of AIP through scholarly publishing activities in the fields of the physical and related sciences on its own behalf and on behalf of our publishing partners to help them proactively advance their missions.

SOURCE AIP Publishing

Home

Continue reading here:

Quantum Tunneling Effects, Solving the Schrodinger Equation Bottleneck Recognized as Best Papers by The Journal of Chemical Physics - PRNewswire

Here's this week's Free Will Astrology!

TAURUS (April 20-May 20): "The future belongs to those who see possibilities before they become obvious," says businessperson and entrepreneur John Sculley. You Tauruses aren't renowned for such foresight. It's more likely to belong to Aries and Sagittarius people. Your tribe is more likely to specialize in doing the good work that turns others' bright visions into practical realities. But this Year of the Coronavirus could be an exception to the general rule. In the past three months as well as in the next six months, many of you Bulls have been and will continue to be catching glimpses of interesting possibilities before they become obvious. Give yourself credit for this knack. Be alert for what it reveals.

CANCER (June 21-July 22): Novelist Marcel Proust was a sensitive, dreamy, emotional, self-protective, creative Cancerian. That may explain why he wasn't a good soldier. During his service in the French army, he was ranked 73rd in a squad of 74. On the other hand, his majestically intricate seven-volume novel *In Search of Lost Time* is a masterpieceone of the 20th century's most influential literary works. In evaluating his success as a human being, should we emphasize his poor military performance and downplay his literary output? Of course not! Likewise, Cancerian, in the coming weeks I'd like to see you devote vigorous energy to appreciating what you do best and no energy at all to worrying about your inadequacies.

LEO (July 23-Aug. 22): "Fortune resists half-hearted prayers," wrote the poet Ovid more than 2,000 years ago. I will add that Fortune also resists poorly formulated intentions, feeble vows, and sketchy plansespecially now, during an historical turning point when the world is undergoing massive transformations. Luckily, I don't see those lapses being problems for you in the coming weeks, Leo. According to my analysis, you're primed to be clear and precise. Your willpower should be working with lucid grace. You'll have an enhanced ability to assess your assets and make smart plans for how to use them.

VIRGO (Aug. 23-Sept. 22): Last year the Baltimore Museum of Art announced it would acquire works exclusively from women artists in 2020. A male art critic complained, "That's unfair to male artists." Here's my reply: Among major permanent art collections in the U.S. and Europe, the work of women makes up five percent of the total. So what the Baltimore Museum did is a righteous attempt to rectify the existing excess. It's a just and fair way to address an unhealthy imbalance. In accordance with current omens and necessities, Virgo, I encourage you to perform a comparable correction in your personal sphere.

LIBRA (Sept. 23-Oct. 22): In the course of my life, I've met many sharp thinkers with advanced degrees from fine universitieswho are nonetheless stunted in their emotional intelligence. They may quote Shakespeare and discourse on quantum physics and explain the difference between the philosophies of Kant and Hegel, and yet have less skill in understanding the inner workings of human beings or in creating vibrant intimate relationships. Yet most of these folks are not extreme outliers. I've found that virtually all of us are smarter in our heads than we are in our hearts. The good news, Libra, is that our current Global Healing Crisis is an excellent time for you to play catch up. Do what poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti suggests: "Make your mind learn its way around the heart."

SCORPIO (Oct. 23-Nov. 21): Aphorist Aaron Haspel writes, "The less you are contradicted, the stupider you become. The more powerful you become, the less you are contradicted." Let's discuss how this counsel might be useful to you in the coming weeks. First of all, I suspect you will be countered and challenged more than usual, which will offer you rich opportunities to become smarter. Secondly, I believe you will become more powerful as long as you don't try to stop or discourage the influences that contradict you. In other words, you'll grow your personal authority and influence to the degree that you welcome opinions and perspectives that are not identical to yours.

SAGITTARIUS (Nov. 22-Dec. 21): "It's always too early to quit," wrote author Norman Vincent Peale. We should put his words into perspective, though. He preached "the power of positive thinking." He was relentless in his insistence that we can and should transcend discouragement and disappointment. So we should consider the possibility that he was overly enthusiastic in his implication that we should NEVER give up. What do you think, Sagittarius? I'm guessing this will be an important question for you to consider in the coming weeks. It may be time to re-evaluate your previous thoughts on the matter and come up with a fresh perspective. For example, maybe it's right to give up on one project if it enables you to persevere in another.

CAPRICORN (Dec. 22-Jan. 19): The 16-century mystic nun Saint Teresa of Avila was renowned for being overcome with rapture during her spiritual devotions. At times she experienced such profound bliss through her union with God that she levitated off the ground. "Any real ecstasy is a sign you are moving in the right direction," she wrote. I hope that you will be periodically moving in that direction yourself during the coming weeks, Capricorn. Although it may seem odd advice to receive during our Global Healing Crisis, I really believe you should make appointments with euphoria, delight, and enchantment.

AQUARIUS (Jan. 20-Feb. 18): Grammy-winning musician and composer Pharrell Williams has expertise in the creative process. "If someone asks me what inspires me," he testifies, "I always say, 'That which is missing.'" According to my understanding of the astrological omens, you would benefit from making that your motto in the coming weeks. Our Global Healing Crisis is a favorable time to discover what's absent or empty or blank about your life, and then learn all you can from exploring it. I think you'll be glad to be shown what you didn't consciously realize was lost, omitted, or lacking.

PISCES (Feb. 19-March 20): "I am doing my best to not become a museum of myself," declares poet Natalie Diaz. I think she means that she wants to avoid defining herself entirely by her past. She is exploring tricks that will help her keep from relying so much on her old accomplishments that she neglects to keep growing. Her goal is to be free of her history, not to be weighed down and limited by it. These would be worthy goals for you to work on in the coming weeks, Pisces. What would your first step be?

Visit link:

Free Will Astrology - Week of May 7 | Advice & Fun | Bend - The Source Weekly

Stephen Wolfram, inventor of the Wolfram computational language and the Mathematica software, announced that he may have found a path to the holy grail of physics: A fundamental theory of everything. Even with the subjunctive, this is certainly a powerful statement that should be met with some skepticism.

What is considered a fundamental theory of physics? In our current understanding, there are four fundamental forces in nature: the electromagnetic force, the weak force, the strong force, and gravity. Currently, the description of these forces is divided into two parts: General Relativity (GR), describing the nature of gravity that dominates physics on astronomical scales. Quantum Field Theory (QFT) describes the other three forces and explains all of particle physics.

An overview of particle physics by Headbomb [CC-BY-SA 3.0]Up to now, it has not been possible to unify both General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory since they are formulated within different mathematical frameworks. In particular, treating gravity within the formalism of QFT leads to infinite terms that cannot be canceled out within the generally accepted framework of renormalization. The two most popular attempts to deliver a quantum mechanical description of gravity are String Theory and the lesser know Quantum Loop Gravity. The former would be considered a fundamental theory that describes all forces in nature while the latter limits itself to the description of gravity.

Apart from the incompatibility of QFT and GR there are still several unsolved problems in particle physics like the nature of dark matter and dark energy or the origin of neutrino masses. While these phenomena tell us that the current Standard Model of particle physics is incomplete they might still be explainable within the current frameworks of QFT and GR. Of course, a fundamental theory also has to come up with a natural explanation for these outstanding issues.

Stephen Wolfram is best known for his work in computer science but he actually started his career in physics. He received his PhD in theoretical particle physics at the age of 20 and was the youngest person in history to receive the prestigious McArthur grant. However, he soon left physics to pursue his research into cellular automata which lead to the development of the Wolfram code. After founding his company Wolfram Research he continued to develop the Wolfram computational language which is the basis for the Wolfram Mathematica software. On the one hand, it becomes obvious that Wolfram is a very gifted man, on the other hand, people have sometimes criticized him for being an egomaniac as his brand naming convention subtly suggests.

In 2002, Stephen Wolfram published his 1200-page mammoth book A New Kind of Sciencewhere he applied his research on cellular automata to physics. The main thesis of the book is that simple programs, in particular the Rule 110 cellular automaton, can generate very complex systems through repetitive application of a simple rule. It further claims that these systems can describe all of the physical world and that the Universe itself is computational. The book got controversial reviews, while some found that it contains a cornucopia of ideas others criticized it as arrogant and overstated. Among the most famous critics were Ray Kurzweil and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg. It was the latter who wrote that:

Wolfram [] cant resist trying to apply his experience with digital computer programs to the laws of nature. [] he concludes that the universe itself would then be an automaton, like a giant computer. Its possible, but I cant see any motivation for these speculations, except that this is the sort of system that Wolfram and others have become used to in their work on computers. So might a carpenter, looking at the moon, suppose that it is made of wood.

The Wolfram Physics Project is a continuation of the ideas formulated in A New Kind of Science and was born out of a collaboration with two young physicists who attended Wolframs summer school. The main idea has not changed, i.e. that the Universe in all its complexity can be described through a computer algorithm that works by iteratively applying a simple rule. Wolfram recognizes that cellular automata may have been too simple to produce this kind of complexity instead he now focuses on hypergraphs.

In mathematics, a graph consists of a set of elements that are related in pairs. When the order of the elements is taken into account this is called a directed graph. The most simple example of a (directed) graph can be represented as a diagram and one can then apply a rule to this graph as follows:

The rule states that wherever a relation that matches {x,y} appears, it should be replaced by {{x ,y},{y,z}}, wherez is a new element. Applying this rule to the graph yields:

By applying this rule iteratively one ends up with more and more complicated graphs as shown in the example here. One can also add complexity by allowing self-loops, rules involving copies of the same relation, or rules depending on multiple relations. When allowing relations between more than two elements, this moves from graphs to hypergraphs.

How is this related to physics? Wolfram surmises that the Universe can be represented by an evolving hypergraph where a position in space is defined by a node and time basically corresponds to the progressive updates. This introduces new physical concepts, e.g. that space and time are discrete, rather than continuous. In this model, the quest for a fundamental theory corresponds to finding the right initial condition and underlying rule. Wolfram and his colleagues think they have already identified the right class of rules and constructed models that reproduce some basic principles of general relativity and quantum mechanics.

A fundamental problem of the model is what Wolfram calls computational irreducibility, meaning that to calculate any state of the hypergraph one has to go through all iterations starting from the initial condition. This would make it virtually impossible to run the computation long enough in order to test a model by comparing it to our current physical Universe.

Wolfram thinks that some basic principles, e.g. the dimensionality of space, can be deduced from the rules itself. Wolfram also points out that although the generated model universes can be tested against observations the framework itself is not amenable to experimental falsification. It is generally true that fundamental physics has long decoupled from the scientific method of postulating hypotheses based on experimental observations. String theory has also been criticized for not making any testable predictions. However, String theory historically developed from nuclear physics while Wolfram does not give any motivation for choosing evolving hypergraphs for his framework. However, some physicists are thinking in similar directions like Nobel laureate Gerard tHooft who has recently published a cellular automaton interpretation of quantum mechanics. In addition, Wolframs colleague, Jonathan Gorard, points out that their approach is a generalization of spin networks used in Loop Quantum Gravity.

On his website, Wolfram invites other people to participate in the project although it is somehow vague how this will work. In general, they need people to work out the potential observable predictions of their model and the relation to other fundamental theories. If you want to dive into the topic in depth there is a 448-page technical introduction on the website and they have also recently started a series of livestreams where they plan to release 400 hours of video material.

Wolframs model certainly contains many valuable ideas and cannot be simply disregarded as crackpottery. Still, most mainstream physicists will probably be skeptical about the general idea of a discrete computational Universe. The fact that Wolfram tends to overstate his findings and publishes through his own media channels instead of going through peer-reviewed physics journals does not earn him any extra credibility.

Here is the original post:

Wolfram Physics Project Seeks Theory Of Everything; Is It Revelation Or Overstatement? - Hackaday