@Phil: thanks for the encouragement! I am happy to see you here, as presumably you are the author of two of my references?

Anyway, relating graphene to quantum gravity is, at least for my understanding, still a little shady at the present time; not that I have mostly been writing about simulating Dirac fermions in (2+1)-dimensional spacetime, with some ideas about how to extend this to curved spacetime. But while obtaining a quantized form of this spacetime may be possible with graphene, to me it seems extremely speculative at the present time. I bet, however, that some people have thought about this, so the speculation is mostly due to my ignorance. In any case, I have to admit that my choice of title was mainly for effect...

@Steve: as I have mentioned in my essay, there have been successful *simulations* of black holes by other physical systems. But note that these are only simulations and not actual black holes with a gravitational singularity. For example, while from behind the horizon of an actual black hole no particle can escape, this holds in the simulation only for certain kinds of quasi-particles. About the creation of actual microscopic black holes, I suppose we will have to wait a few years for the LHC to produce more data before we can decide either way.

Well, while I noticed what happened, I don't know who you're talking about... But it doesn't really matter ;)

Dear Ioannis,

my knowledge of chemistry is very superficial, while you're apparently an expert. So, do you think that the phenomenon of hybridization is responsible for the important role they play in biological systems?

Sorry if I cannot follow your explanation of the lattice structure and the different 'types' of carbon atoms. What I can say is that the red ellipses are *not* supposed to depict double bonds; pairing the atoms up into pairs and defining each atom to be of a certain 'type' is just a mathematical trick. In principle, each atom can be paired up with any of its neighbors. There is no physical/chemical significance to the red ellipses, and neither to the blue lines. Also, basically there exists no physical/chemical connection at all between different atoms of the same type.

It is very much like in benzene, which is sometimes depicted as having three double bonds and three single bonds, although all of the six bonds are identical, which makes benzene a nicely symmetric molecule.

Maybe we have been saying the same thing in different words. Feel free to email me if you don't deem the discussion appropriate for this forum; I'll be happy to learn more chemistry!

I haven't yet looked at your essay in detail yet (will do so tomorrow) in order to be able to comment on the relation.

Tobias,

Isn't graphene difficult to work with? What is the effect of a graphene flake lying atop an iridium crystal causing new iridium atoms?

Not my area of understanding.

Jim Hoover

    • [deleted]

    • Post #18

    Hi Tobias,

    Nice essay and a good idea! I completely agree about the importance of graphene in this context and I am continually amazed by the mapping between a 2D flake of graphite and the Dirac equation. In particular if Zitterbewegung can be seen that would extraordinary.

    Thanks again for the essay, you've given me some things to think about.

    -Cheers,

    Mike Bradley

    PS How do you like ICFO ? I have been there once (more or less by accident) while on holiday in Barcelona; it seems like a nice place.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #19

      Dear Tobias,

      Hybridization is (one of) the most important factor(s) that atoms and molecules' properties are depented of. Chemical orbitals are in a sense the application of quantum theory in chemistry. So, double bond is also a mathematical "trick" - model. A figure is attached in order to help understand what I mean by lattices staff (lattices in green). Regards narsep (ioannis)Attachment #1: fig.jpg

      • [deleted]

      • Post #20

      thanks I see clearer.You know I am tired to repeat always the same thing, the best is to read my post since 2 years on FQXi, you know I write all days.It was my only solution to show my model of spherization.Thus Of course I must repeat and it's tiring sometimes.What I say is simple, all is in a 3D even our quantum scale and even our cosmological scale, it's essential for the duration implied by rotating spheres and proportional with mass.Now considering an entanglmement and a finite serie, you shall see a fractal of the main central sphere and thus a serie with volumes, with the center as the biggest volume of course.All our universal entropy is with the rotating spheres, the mass is this rotating spheres and the light also and even the space, it's just their rotatioons spinals and orbitals which are different and thus imply the specificity of evolution.THUS OF COURSE THE GRAPHENE IS AN APPLICATION OF THIS SIMPLE UNIVERSAL REALITY....OUR uNIVERSAL SPHERE IS IN THE SAME RELATIVISTIC LOGIC OF RATIONALITY.A center and its spheres inside a sphere.ps eureka.Hope that helps.

      Regards

      Steve

      OK, excellent, now I understand your point! I'm afraid though that I cannot adopt this very unconventional point of view...

      Hi Ioannis,

      ok, good to clear this up, so then we have been saying the same thing! It was the terminology of "double bond" which confused me: it sounds a lot like something which is actually deemed to exist. Thanks also for the figure. Maybe you can allow me to ask, as a final question, what the "charge front" and "charge transfer" mean in the figure?

      Dear Jim,

      sorry if I cannot comment on this, as I'm not aware of any relation between graphene and iridium. Can you expand or point to a reference?

      And probably yes, I suppose that graphene is difficult to work with in the lab, also because of its unprecedented properties like two-dimensionality and its stiffness, and whatnot. But then anything is difficult to work with when it's new, and simple to work with once the techniques have been established. Obvious examples come to mind, take Bose-Einstein condensation for a recent one which took so long to be realized experimentally, but is now produced on a daily basis in many labs around the world.

      Dear Mike,

      thank you for the kind words, I appreciate it! About ICFO, yes, I think it's a nice place and I'm quite happy here. There is a lot going on, though mostly on the experimental side, but also in the quantum information group we always have something to discuss. Only the location is a bit off; but maybe this is what you came for: the marvelous beaches?

      • [deleted]

      • Post #25

      As if that are going to change my life hihihihi, I suspect a lack of generality and a lack of study in all centers of interest.You are a good computer, it's well.Indeed we are not on the same wave lenght.You confound a little the simulations and our realism , objective and rational.

      ps a BH is a sphere and it turns, it has a volume, it has a mass, a density and it has a rule with a pure gravitation,and the general and special relativity..you know the thermodynamic and its cooling since the BB I suppose......and this sphere turns also around others centers (more important volumes) and around the biggest volume our universal central sphere and all that inside a closed evolutive sphere.Indeed you don't understand the whole.Thus I suggest you must rethought your lines of reasoning.or perhaps buy better books, they exist you know.But if you interpret as that the unconventional as you says...oh my god, return at universities and take a Occham Razor for your teachers please.

      Learn our foundamentals and not only computing.You shall see that will help you, be sure.

      On that good luck.

      Steve

      • [deleted]

      • Post #26

      seee what is a real BH .....please before pondering these stupidities.Never they exist these micro BH no but we dream in live there.If you simulate that ...wawww I am impressed.A BH is a cosmological sphere.The LHC must be rational and stop the researchs of stupidities as higgs or extradimensions or this and that...business VS rationality .....

      Regards

      Steve

      • [deleted]

      • Post #27

      you can say steve,you know dear vanitious and pseudos rationalists.

      ahahah let's laugh in live, you are touched oh I just say my opinion and with politness, be direct and frank if it's possible or don't anwer simply,it's not necessary you know Narsep, Or ih or Ionannis, I don't know ....ps ioanis your ideas aren't general.The same treatment hihihi that is that of course, we aren't here to take gloves.if it's that the sciences community ??? well you can't answer because you haven't answer simply.And you don't see the genrality thus why you try ....that is the question.The critics are essential and must be transparent for all readers, FQXi makes well that, he deletes rarelly the posts and it's well I thank you for that.Fortunally this transparence exists.The sciences must foundamentals.

      You are interestings as persons but your ideas lack of generality and the generality is essnetial for the real understandfing of our uniqueness and its entropic evolution.I am obliged to show you the road of generality and ITS UNIVERSAL PROPORTIONALITIES? RATIONAL AND LOgIC AND PRAGMATIC.

      PSstill one thing, it is not because I have discussions with people that I am going to rate it differently and without logic.Your work merits a simple 5 and tobias a 6....for your illumination, I give a 8 to Dr Ray Munroe and 8 to Dr Klingman and 9 fro Dr Layzer .Eckard merits a good one also....well and you want what after .Be rational thanks.

      Regards

      Steve

      • [deleted]

      • Post #29

      Hi Tobias,

      Yes exactly, I came down to visit Barcelona with a girlfriend around Xmas and since we were staying in a hotel in Castelldelfels we drove by ICFO to check it out. As I say it looked like a nice place.

      What sort of work is your group doing there ? I'm working at the BIPM in Sevres, near Paris, on a superconducting Watt Balance machine for measuring Planck's constant h and also for the planned redefinition of the SI kilogram standard in 2015. I am particularly interested in applying quanutm information ideas in precision measurement applications-- hence my interest in graphene also.

      -Cheers,

      Mike Bradley

      Dr. Michael P. Bradley, Ph.D., P.Eng.

      Chercheur Associé/Research Fellow

      Electricity Department/Watt Balance

      Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM)

      Pavillon de Breteuil

      F-92312 Sèvres CEDEX

      France

      Tél: +33 1 45 07 62 92

      email: mbradley@bipm.org

      AND

      Associate Professor

      Dept. of Physics and Engineering Physics

      University of Saskatchewan

      116 Science Place

      Saskatoon, SK S7N 5E2 Canada

      http://physics.usask.ca/~bradley/index.html

      michael.bradley@usask.ca

      • [deleted]

      • Post #30

      Hello Tobias,

      Congrats on a good essay. I only wanted to correct one thing. Zitter was experimentally observed. Check out Hestenes' winning essay on the nature of time.

        Dear Tobias,

        I enjoyed your essay and couldn't help becoming more curious as it progressed. It does seem very attractive to test quantum theory in a controlled environment as you describe. Massless fermions seem especially interesting for study, especially if graphene allows a certain degree of control of the parameters. From your research, is the test something that can be set up in an average lab?

        Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

          • [deleted]

          • Post #32

          Dear Florin,

          that's very interesting! Thanks for the pointer, it would indeed have been worth mentioning in the essay.

          On the other hand, from what I gather from skimming Hestenes' essay and his paper, his zitter model is a theory of a classical point particle, and therefore clearly cannot be realistic. For example, how would it reproduce the spectrum of the hydrogen atom? Certainly one needs some sort of quantization somewhere.

          Evaluating the merits of the experiment seems much more difficult. So I don't dare saying anything about whether this could be an experimental detection of zitterbewegung or not, but only notice that it's not well-known and has not been published in an 'important' journal, which makes me a bit skeptical.

          oops, my login had expired, the previous post is mine!