Feynman diagrams depicting the different (decay-)channels for single-top-production mechanisms. The letters refer to top quarks (t), bottom quarks (b), light quarks (q: u, d, s), W bosons (W), and gluons (g). In each case, the incoming particles are shown on the left and the outgoing particles on the right of the diagram. The circles indicate the W-t-b vertex (interaction), whose coupling strength is governed by the CKM matrix element Vtb.
Close-up view of the next-generation microshutter arrays — designed to accommodate the needs of future observatories — during the fabrication process.
We are exploring new modalities of creative photography through robotics and long-exposure photography. Using a robotic arm, a light source is carried through precise movements in front of a camera. Photographic compositions are recorded as images of volumetric light. Robotic light “painting” can also be inverted: the camera is moved via the arm to create an image “painted” with environmental light. Finally, adding real-time sensor input to the moving arm and programming it to explore the physical space around objects can reveal immaterial fields like radio waves, magnetic fields, and heat flows.
Via Mediated Matter (MIT)
Q:"Yep, Einstein [...] didn’t accept Quantum Mechanics at the time..." Hey ScienceIsBeauty, that's just the story you get in poorly researched pop physics books. It's the story many physicists believe, but that's because they learn their history of science from popular science, not historians. Einstein did accept QM, but not Copenhagen interpretation because it wasn't radical enough. It was Einstein who proved entanglement happened! Arthur Fine's book 'The Shaky Game' tells the story well.
Hi, thanks for your comment. Actually I’m almost sure that historians (and philosophers) did not understand Quantum Mechanics either. ;-)
The Einstein’s problem with QM was the probabilistic character of the theory (i.e. the probabilistic character of nature: “God does not play dice”), but this character is intrinsic to nature, inseparable from QM, and involves the falsation of once and for all of Classical Mechanics.
Einstein never accepted this breakdown of Determinism (and neither did with Quantum Nonlocality), with implications not only in Physics but also important philosophical consequences, and died thinking that something was missing in Quantum Mechanics so that the deterministic character of nature might be recover. Well, this has not happened, is not likely to happen, and as I said in my comment, given the enormous accumulation of empirical and theoretical evidence (remember that all Particle Physics, Quantum Electrodynamics and the Standard Model, for example, lie upon Quantum Mechanics), I’m pretty sure that Einstein would not think the same nowadays… although who knows?
I write down your recommendation and I’ll take a look, thanks.
Being patronising doesn’t make you right :-P Just as I said - you repeating a common but false story. It was Einstein who proved mathematically that QM could not be both local and deterministic - so he did accept QM & non-locality.
C’mon, being patronising (and/or sarcastic) doesn’t make you right either. It seems to me that you have skipped the Bohr–Einstein debates, or maybe you think you can still help Einstein win the debate. Well, is not the case. I recommend you this post at The Reference Frame where is explained very clearly why it is not the case.
Also, locality is ensured because the Special Theory of Relativity, Einstein accepted “non-locality" (i.e. quantum entanglement) because it was impossible to dodge in the "new" theoretical framework, but he remains skeptics about the "completness" and other stuff of the quantum theory. In other words, he did not quite believe that quantum mechanics was the definitive answer to this alleged “non locality”.
I think all these drawbacks to the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, have been surpassed today, and the proof is that this view of the theory is the most widely used and accepted by the scientific community, and indeed are the other interpretations which often fall headlong into the pseudoscience.
By the way, could you kindly provide some links endorsing your arguments? Thanks.