OK, excellent, now I understand your point! I'm afraid though that I cannot adopt this very unconventional point of view...
Quantum Graphenity by Tobias Fritz
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]
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]
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]
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]
Please see fig. attached.
narsep (ioannis)Attachment #1: sound.jpg
[deleted]
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]
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]
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!
Dear Russell,
I'm happy to hear your comments! First of all, I should emphasize again that almost all of what I explained is not 'my' research, but merely a write-up of what I learned from reading the papers.
About the experimental realizations, yes, it seems that one indeed has good control over some of the parameters. For example, one can add hydrogen atoms to the lattice sites, which means that the affected lattice sites are not available for the electron hopping. Also, the two-dimensionality is a big advantage in that one has direct access to each atom, in contrast to three-dimensional crystals.
However, my understanding is that most things can only be observed indirectly. For example, observing a single massless free Dirac particle may be impossible, since how would one isolate a single electron? What has been observed is the correct dependence of the cyclotron mass on the electron filling, as predicted by the Dirac formalism. Or maybe one can use doping to introduce internal electric potentials, of which one might then try to observe the energy levels...? I don't know...
Hola Tobias
I enjoyed your concept of analyzing graphene as a basis of simulating aspects of physics. In my current fqxi paper and my earlier 2005 Beautiful Universe theory on which it is based I have proposed an entire universe made up solely of one type of node - much as your 2-D graphene 'universe' is made up of one type of node: a carbon atom. In my proposed Face-Centered Cubic (FCC) lattice the nodes are magnetic dipoles whose axes can be aligned in any direction in 3D. (N-S) attraction and (N-N) or (S-S) repulsion play an important role in the interactions of the lattice. I wonder if carbon has such polarity, and whether induction plays a role in the unusual binding strength of graphene's chemical bonds.
A related question that arose in my theory and other discussions here is that in 3D (for example in buckminster fullerine molecules Carbon 60) Brouwer's theorem states that a vector field on a sphere will always have one vortex. This implies a 'weak' spot on a C60 molecule - if that is, magnetic polarity plays a role there. Such phenomena highlight the limitations of 2D simulations in a 3D world, and I hope you can extend your fascinating analysis into 3D lattices, particularly FCC. Good luck to you.
Vladimir
Dear Tobias,
Thank you for the extra detail. It makes it clear it is an involved test. Very interesting.
Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen
[deleted]
Dear Tobias,
Hestenes' idea is only a speculation, but the resonance was experimentally observed and the root cause of zitterbewegung and Klein paradox is the SU(2)xU(1) gauge symmetry of Dirac's equation (combined with the a spin current conservation to be 100% rigurous). This generates a departure from the simple Berry phase of standard nonrelativistic QM and uncovers new physics unavailable from the simpler U(1) symmetry. By the way, in quantum Hall effect experiments, spin current is not conserved and the full SU(2)xU(1) symmetry is experimentally observed and is explained as spin-orbit coupling.
Dear Vladimir,
thank you for the excellent questions! As far as I understand, a carbon atom does not a priori have any magnetic moment. However, one can introduce magnetic moments by adding additional atoms of other elements "above" or "below" the carbon atoms; see for example this paper:
http://www.lnsm-zju.cn/lab/Upload/FCKfile/File/2008/5.pdf
Moreover, it seems that there is something like an emergent ferromagnetism going on, a phenomenon poorly understood. See here:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/19143
Finally, about extending the analysis to higher dimensions: Yes, I am indeed working on that! The goal is to see whether there are any higher-dimensional lattices which also have the property of the emergence of fermions. This is unlikely to be the case in 3D, since otherwise this would be well-known. I think that one would need a "non-rectangular" symmetry of the lattice. I'm not sure what exactly I mean by that, by the hexagonal graphene lattice certainly satisfies it with its ternary rotational symmetry, whereas an FCC lattice doesn't.
But I'm looking forward to study the 4D case, since this is the one relevant for actual physics in spacetime! (I'm thinking of things like lattice simulations of Euclidean Quantum Field Theory.)
[deleted]
Hello to both of you,
What about the magneton of Borh and the nuclear and atomic magnetic momemts.....it's always proportional in factn with the spinning and orbiting spheres.......partition fuction of a sub systems of entangled spheres ...the number is specific and presice for all gravitational stabilities.The entropy is correlated.
The particles inside the system have a spins thus a magnetism nuclear.We can take several quatum numbers which differenciate the different spins and orbitals.If the volumes are inserted also with the biggest volume for th cneter.....we can also differenciate the velocities of these rotations correlated with mass with the magneton of Borh as system of gauge eh/4pimc....we can subtitute the mass of different volumes. You can use the parallelization of Christian also in a deterministic road showing the rationalities of the magnetic momment, all has a momment,only the space hasn't rotations thus mass thus no momment also.It's relevant if the real serie is inserted for the different quantum numbers......the conservation of the parity seems essential as our proprtionalities.
Regards
Steve
Hello Tobias
I am glad my comments made some sense to you. There is so much in physics and mathematics I do not know - for example Euclidean Quantum Field Theory or what is ternary rotational symmetry and why it is important in fermion structure. In my (BU) theory the FCC arrangement was suggested almost ad-hoc and because other researchers such as Norman Cook (Models of the Atomic Nucleus (Springer)) was able to simulate nucleon structure using it. The magnetic lattice nodes I proposed self-assemble into some sort of configuration. I wonder if this process can easily be simulated and with what software.- it is outside my proficiency (all I know is the old BASIC !).
Hello Steve I hope you fine. Good luck to us all.
Vladimir