* a couple of University of Queensland guys talk about how quantum entanglement can not just be across space, but across time as well. The crux of what this means is summed up here ( I hope accurately):
Olson and Ralph's teleportation provides a shortcut into the future. What they're saying is that it's possible to travel into the future without being present during the time in between.Cool. Not dissimilar to a really good night's sleep, though.
* Physics World has a good article looking the LHC after a year, and what it has shown so far, and may yet show. It includes this bit about mini black holes:
CMS scientists have also found no evidence for micro black holes in their 12,500 tonne detector (arXiv:1012.3375). This result, reported just before Christmas, will not have come as a shock to anyone who thinks such black holes will destroy the planet. (For them, it's only a matter of time...) But it has not surprised many physicists either, given that miniature black holes could only appear at the LHC if space has more than three dimensions. So what does CMS's black-hole blank mean for such outlandish pictures of space–time? Can we now simply start ruling them out?The rest of the article, which mentions string theory and whether or not it can in any respect be bolstered by future findings, is worth reading.
"The fascinating science of black-hole production and evaporation still stands," insists Steve Giddings of the University of California, Santa Barbara, who a decade ago co-proposed the possibility that the LHC might create black holes. "The CMS results begin to rule out the most extreme configurations of extra dimensions, although it is true that such configurations are believed unlikely by many. It's still a possibility that black holes will be made at the LHC, but it's not a prediction unless you know the configuration of the extra dimensions!"
* Physics World has another good article up: a review of a book of essays called Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics. Who can resist that?
As the title suggests, the essays get to theology eventually:
The problem, of course, is that once we leave the scientific domain, it becomes rather easy to make unfounded speculations about the connections between information and various other religious concepts. For instance, in the last chapter of this book we encounter suggestions that the Christian Gospel of John could be interpreted in information-theoretic terms. Similar parallels are drawn in the essay by Michael Welker, who discusses the information content in the resurrection of the Christ. Carelessly extrapolated, this sort of exposition might lead to arguments similar to Frank Tipler's nonsensical "proofs" of various Christian dogmas in his two books The Physics of Immortality and The Physics of Christianity. Amusing as such parallels might be, it is doubtful that they will ever lead to any greater enlightenment as to the nature of reality itself.Speaking of information and the gospels, I remember a conversation I once had with a Catholic quasi-girlfriend (I'm not sure we ever quite agreed on her status) in which I complained that, if God wanted Jesus to be seen as convincingly divine 2000 years after he trod the Earth, it would have been handy to have some bits of science thrown in the Gospels, like this: "Consider the water. Little do you know that the air you breath has the essential parts that, when joined together, two parts to one, make the water that will quench your thirst." Of course, the possibility is that Jesus did make references to science all the time, but the Gospel writers found them so silly or incomprehensible that they refused to commit them to paper. Or it may be that something like advanced games theory means it's really quite important for humanity not to have the certainty of God or an afterlife staring them in the face all the time. The temptation to keep killing others for perceived wrongs and let God sort it out on the other side might be too much. There are no doubt other theories around.
* Don Page, a Christian physicist who I have mentioned before, has a new article out arguing against the universe we find ourselves in being fine tuned for life. As Bee Hossenfelder notes, Don uses this argument as support for his fondness for a multiverse, ending his paper this way:
"It could be taken as negative evidence for theists who expect God to fine tune the constants of physics optimally for life. However, for other theists, such as myself, it may simply support the hypothesis that God might prefer a multiverse as the most elegant way to create life and the other purposes He has for His Creation."By the way, physicist Bee's own universe has expanded lately by the birth of twins. Congratulations are in order.


