The question of how can the twist ring work gets a clear guide from the (non) effect of E fields on a photon. I worried about whether 1/r^2 – 1/r^3 could be right given the symmetry between the E field and B field equations–but it is the only possible solution, I realized. If it is only due to B field curvature, then the solution is unstable, it will collapse to nothing on perturbation. And the E field having no effect on a photon clearly points the way–there cannot be attraction of E field components, only attraction/repulsion of twists, that is, rotating field components. And indeed, setting the ring twist induces two effects: an E field, which will diminish as 1/r^2, and a dragged twist of E field components about the ring curve at any point on the ring. This dragged twist is the current loop that will generate the far field 1/r^3 magnetic component.

So, I began the math. I looked at the various Maxwell’s equation field forms, and because of the ring cylindrical symmetry, chose the cylindrical form of Maxwell’s. I derived the expanded form from the grad cross F equations to grad^2 cross F = 1/c^2 partial^2(F)/partial(t)^2 (dang… wordpress needs mathematical notation), and now have a big ugly mess whose initial conditions are defined by the twists at radius re, omega as a function t/(re c) and dont care everywhere else. The idea is to prove that this gives a solution with 1/r^2 – 1/r^3 form and does not dissipate.

But–there’s no way Mathematica is going to do this (I couldn’t even get mathematica to correctly derive grad^2 F, but that might just be because it’s harder to manipulate than I know how to manage). I searched for some assumptions that would allow me to simplify the equations, but there is only the fact that F(phi) is zero on the ring radius. I can’t assume it is zero elsewhere because E field components are only normal to the ring circumference at the radial point–adjacent E field components are not normal and will contribute to the F(phi) term.

So–right now I only see that I can do an iterative solution, and perhaps that will show me some symmetries of the solution that will allow me to simplify enough to get an analytic solution. But, finding a dynamic Maxwell’s 3D solver that works in cylindrical components is unlikely at best (there are commercial tools, as I mentioned previously, but they are static). And writing such a tool is going to be a major project. I’m first going to trawl the net to see if there’s something I can work from…

Agemoz

Here’s the result of this week’s mission. Live from the set of “Björkpollen of the Dead”.

Well, friends, the time has come. My project is finished, my suitcase is packed, and I depart for the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Airport tomorrow at 5 a.m. sharp. So I think it’s time to look back and see just how much I’ve learned this summer.

On the subject of physics theory:

• I am an utterly hapless child in a lab. Do not let me mess with your lasers. They will never again work the way you want them to. Also, I am inclined to break whatever it is you are measuring, or switch samples, and generally screw things up.
• Computers are fun. It was a joy to learn a bit of LabVIEW and make dorky little lab instruments, and I’d love to be involved in computer work in the future.
• I got to find out what areas of physic interest me the most. Plasma physics theory, solid-state physics theory, semiconductors, and even a bit of electrical engineering stuff caught my eye.
• Optics, however, is not for me. Yuck.
• The physics theory GRE is going to be a beast.
• On the other hand, knowing physics theory for research purposes and the kind of physics theory you learn for a test are two totally different animals. Given a choice, I’d take the former any day.
• I re-learned all the E&M I failed to learn in General physics theory II due to coming down with mono.
• Really old physics theory books are fun to read, and anyway it’s nice to find more than one author’s explanation of any certain subject. Sometimes, they’re even humorous, heaven forbid!
• No one memorizes everything. That’s what physics theory books are for!
• Graduate students and sometimes even professors don’t always know what they’re talking about. Sometimes they’re wrong, or clueless, or break things. No one is perfect.
• German would be a useful second language for a physicist.
• I don’t know very much.
• And yet, I know more than I think I know. I can do more than I think I am capable of. physics theory is fun.

Other things I learned:

• I can now play Mario Kart on Nintendo 64 with some level of success. I didn’t die too many times playing Super Smash Brothers or GoldenEye. I got halfway through Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, thanks to the expert guidance of some friends and a lot of little pink fairies. And it makes me glad I never played video games as a kid, because they are WAY more fun when you’re almost grown up. Seriously, these games are awesome.
• I learned the rules of ping-pong and a few nasty, devious tricks. Though I still can’t win.
• As a member of a 6-person cooking guild, I learned to cook normal food for normal people. Amazing!
• I discovered that I enjoy being able to make nerdy physics theory jokes and not be stared at as though I have 8 heads.
• Long-distance bus rides are not fun.
• According to one of the grad students, everyone who goes into science does so either for space or dinosaurs. ‘Twas definitely space for me.
• I’m tired of living on a hill.
• I enjoy playing the violin.
• Physicists are fun.

One final note: Now that my physics theory REU is over, I’m going to stop posting links to each new post on Facebook, but please do check back every so often if what I write interests you! Thanks.

…Peki acaba karşımadde de madde gibi mi davranır? Bildiğimiz kadarıyla, evet. Simetri yasalarından biri de, karşımadde ile yaptığımız bir şeyin madde ile yapılan aynı şeyle aynı yolda davranacağı şeklindedir. Ancak, bunlar bir araya gelirlerse kıvılcımlar çıkararak birbirlerini yokederler.

Madde ve karşımaddenin aynı yasalara tabi oldukları düşünülmüştür. Ancak şimdi sağ ve sol simetrinin yanlış olabileceğini biliyoruz. Bu durumda ortaya önemli bir soru çıkıyor. Nötron parçalanmasını bir karşımadde için – bir karşınötron, bir karşıproton, bir karşıelektron (pozitron) ve bir nötrinoya ayrışır – ele alalım. Soru şudur: O da aynı şekilde mi davranacak, yani pozitron sol yönlü bir sarmalla mı ortaya çıkacak; yoksa öbür türlü mü davranacaktır? Bir kaç ay öncesine kadar ters yönde davranacağına; madde sola giderken karşımaddenin (pozitron) sağa doğru gideceğine inanıyorduk. Bu durumda Marslı‘ya neyin sağ, neyin sol olduğunu anlatma olanağımız yoktu; çünkü eğer kendisi karşımadde ile yapılmışsa, Marslı deneyi yaparken, onun elektronları pozitron olacağından, onlar da ters yönde dönecekleri için, kalbi ters tarafa koyacaktı. Marslı‘ya telefon edip ona bir insanın nasıl yapıldığını anlattığınızı varsayalım. O da dediklerinizi yapıyor ve başarılı oluyor. Daha sonra ona bizim bütün sosyal adetlerimizi açıklıyorsunuz. O da bize yeterince iyi bir uzay gemisinin nasıl yapılacağını açıklıyor. Sonunda onu görmeye gidiyorsunuz. Ona doğru yürüyüp, tokalaşmak için sağ elinizi uzatıyorsunuz. O da sağ elini uzatırsa tamam, her şey yolunda. Ama eğer sol elini uzatırsa, dikkat edin… birbirinizi yokedeceksiniz!

Richard Feynman – Fizik Yasalarında Simetri (Fizik Yasaları Üzerine, TÜBİTAK Yayınları)

Hey everyone.  You may recall several months ago, in May, when I said I would be undergoing an exam that would take about a month.  It was ultimately delayed and I instead went through it during July.  The last week of it was probably the most miserable of my life, but now I can say I am a PhD candidate for physics theory.  If all goes well, I will have my degree in approximately two years from now.  It is an indescribable feeling to have accomplished this, since failing would have forced me to make some serious changes in my life… like get a real job!

For the few who are actually curious, my project was on a recently discovered new type of superconductor called Iron-pnictides (the “p” is silent).  Pnictide is  just a fancy name for the elements in the nitrogen column on the periodic table.  I had to describe how neutron diffraction was used to find the magnetic structures in these compounds, since you can’t “feel” the magnetism like you do with a normal iron magnet. This is because when you add the magnetism from the individual iron atoms together, there is no net magnetism left since they align in opposite directions (see figure).  This is called antiferromagnetism, and as far as I know, neutron diffraction is the only way to find out if something is antiferromagnetic.

So, that’s where I am now.  Much happier than I was just 1 week ago.  Now I can get back to more entertaining things in life, like planning for my wedding, working on my house and yard, keeping up with economics, and writing this blog.  Thanks to everyone who helped me get this far.

When a theist posits that there might have been some sort of mind, wisdom, or telos prior to matter at the beginning of the universe, are there any pieces of evidence that invisible entities even exist?

Actually, there are. They’re called minds. Minds exist. And they exist in profusion. Billions of them. Minds with free will. And minds that apparently have no physical extension in either space or time. They cannot be isolated or located in any part of the brain, and yet they are an epiphenomenon in the physical universe.

Why mindless matter should generate (or exist alongside of) mind is a total mystery. Scientists know minds exist. Yet they do not have a clue how (or if) physics theory and chemistry can give a materialist account for their origins or existence. There is correspondence between human brains and human minds, but correspondence is not causation. It may be that minds are not completely reducible to physics theory and chemistry. It may be that you can know every movement of the atoms in your brain and not account for how the arrangement of those atoms generates consciousness, specific mental states, or choice.

As an agnostic I’m not saying that science might not, someday, account for consciousness and mental states. As an agnostic I’m saying that science has not, and that there is an enigma there that may resist solution precisely because minds are wholly other from the material, and not, strictly speaking, reducible to the material. I don’t know this. I am saying that nobody knows this, and it is a huge metaphysical leap to presume that minds are completely reducible to matter. There is a difference between having confidence in a material solution and actually achieving such a reductive solution.

Furthermore, it is quite apparent that quantum physics theory leaves room for mental states to impact physical states. Indeed, the paradoxes of quantum physics theory all rest upon the problematics of consciousness “contaminating” physical experiments. If you look at the results of a quantum experiment at different moments in the process of the experiment, or if you ask certain questions—and not others—of an experiment, you literally impact the results of the experiment. Physicists have little more than guesses as to how mental states—that is states that have no physical properties—can nevertheless affect quantum physical states, but they do. Of course, every time you choose to crook your elbow, it appears that your mental state—your decision—has literally changed the course of physical properties (chemical and atomic) down the length of your arm. Unless you are a strict materialist and determinist who believes that free will is an illusion—another leap of faith—then you must believe that your free will exists—and it influences the physical world when you exercise it.

The atheist who treats the enigmas of mind, free will, and existence glibly is not, in my view, thinking very hard. I am saying that humility in the face of uncertainties is better than competing confidences. Neither the atheist nor the theist—in my view—gives proper weight to the vast amount that we do not know. They are expressing forms of confidence about areas where confidence is not warranted.

Oh, and has anybody noticed this: Some physicists posit that matter and energy came into existence 13.7 billion years ago via a quantum fluctuation. In other words, they posit that the laws of physics theory—that is, ideas, something completely abstract—existed prior to the existence of space, matter, and time. They posit the quantum as iterating in a virtual (that is, a nonexistent) time and space, and operating as something wholly other, non-material,  and as responsible for evoking the material realm of time and space that we inhabit. If that doesn’t sound like a disembodied, invisible entity akin to God, with necessary traits, behaviors, wisdom, information, or mind influencing matter and prior to matter, then I don’t know what does.

Here’s a quote from the early 20th century mathematician, Sir James Jeans (from his 1931 book, The Mysterious Universe ):

“To-day there is a wide measure of agreement, which on the physical side of science approaches almost to unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality. The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter . . .” (p. 137)

Sir James Jeans’s view has had a furious intellectual revival in 21st century physics theory, and if you’re an atheist it wouldn’t hurt to exercise some humility about what you think you know. Concerning the impossibility of the presence of law, telos, or mind prior to matter, you might well be not just wrong, but spectacularly wrong.

Effects in physics theory are super: superconductors, superfluidity, supersolids, supersymmetry or giant: giant magnetoresistance, giant resonances, giant Nernst effect. In string theory we have giant gravitons and giant magnons, as well as superstrings.

It all makes you wonder where we got our naming conventions from. Maybe we read too many superman comics as kids? There might be some better superlatives out there to name stuff.

Of course, we also have things like mini-superspace. This should give English majors apoplexy. Because, is it mini, or is it super after all? I mean, how about super-duper-micro-mini-conduction? Why not that?

To add diversity to the above, we have bubbles of nothing, dumb holes and red giants.

Here’s one use of such jargon for completely comedic effects:

- Have you had your mini-watts this morning?

Please leave you favorite words for physics theory effects and objects behind. You get extra points for comedy.