Carson Huey-You is an 11-year-old child prodigy who is currently enrolled at Texas Christian University (TCU) studying quantum physics. He speaks Mandarin Chinese and plays the piano very well. He attends classes with his mother Claretta Huey-You who is also enrolled at TCU.

“According to NBC5 in Dallas, Claretta Huey-You said her son was reading books by the age of two and could add, subtract, multiply and divide by age three.
He attended high school aged five and also speaks Mandarin and plays Beethoven on the piano.
His intellectual capability at such a young age was described as "completely off the grid” and he scored both a high mark and impressive marks in his university admission interview.

TCU’s youngest entrant said he had managed to “make a few friends” in his first few days"

Great accomplishment Young Huey!  This shouldn’t shock us though Africans were the first scholars and scientists on earth. It’s in our blood!

Continue to be Great Carson! #BlackExcellence #CarsonHueyYou #Genius #SancophaLeague

Post Made By @Solar_InnerG


New tattoo: subatomic particles photographed colliding.

Referenced Image: Computer enhanced photo of sub-atomic particle collision in a linear accelerator’s ‘bubble chamber’.

Why I got it: It’s a part of my wrist tattoo of the Fibonnaci spiral that extends over to the rest of my arm of examples where the Fibonnaci spiral seems to appear. Examples of the intricate beauty and mysterious patterns that reoccur in nature, be it tiny subatomic particles colliding, little sea shells washing up on the shore, or massive galaxies at work, it’s a pattern that appears every where you look in nature.

Quantum Experiment shows Time is only an Illusion.

Tiny bits of matter are shot towards a screen that has two slits in it. On the other side of the screen, a high tech video camera records where each photon lands. When scientists close one slit, the camera will show us an expected pattern. But when both slits are opened, an “interference pattern” emerges – they begin to act like waves. It means that each photon individually goes through both slits at the same time and interferes with itself, but it also goes through one slit, and it goes through the other. Furthermore, it goes through neither of them. The single piece of matter becomes a “wave” of potentials, expressing itself in the form of multiple possibilities, and this is why we get the interference pattern. How can a single piece of matter exist and express itself in multiple states, without any physical properties, until it is “measured” or “observed?” Furthermore, how does it choose which path, out of multiple possibilities, it will take? Then, when an “observer” decides to measure and look at which slit the piece of matter goes through, the “wave” of potential paths collapses into one single path. The particle goes from becoming, again, a “wave” of potentials into one particle taking a single route. It’s as if the particle knows it’s being watched. The observer has some sort of effect on the behaviour of the particle. This quantum uncertainty is defined as the ability, “according to the quantum mechanic laws that govern subatomic affairs, of a particle like an electron to exist in a murky state of possibility - to be anywhere, everywhere or nowhere at all - until clicked into substantiality by a laboratory detector or an eyeball.” According to physicist Andrew Truscott, the experiment suggests that “reality does not exist unless we are looking at it”, and that we are living in a holographic-type of universe. 

The delayed choice experiment illustrates how what happens in the present can change what happens(ed) in the past. It also shows how time can go backwards, how cause and effect can be reversed, and how the future caused the past. Scientists in France shot photons into an apparatus and showed that their actions could retroactively change something which had already happened. “If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear, like influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded.”

Imagine a star emitting a photon billions of years ago, heading in the direction of planet Earth. In between, there is a galaxy. As a result of what’s known as “gravitational lensing,” the light will have to bend around the galaxy in order to reach Earth, so it has to take one of two paths, go left or go right. Billions of years later, if one decides to set up an apparatus to “catch” the photon, the resulting pattern would be (as explained above in the double slit experiment) an interference pattern. This demonstrates that the photon took one way, and it took the other way. One could also choose to “peek” at the incoming photon, setting up a telescope on each side of the galaxy to determine which side the photon took to reach Earth. The very act of measuring or “watching” which way the photon comes in means it can only come in from one side. The pattern will no longer be an interference pattern representing multiple possibilities, but a single clump pattern showing “one” way. What does this mean? It means how we choose to measure “now” affects what direction the photon took billions of years ago. Our choice in the present moment affected what had already happened in the past. This makes absolutely no sense, which is a common phenomenon when it comes to quantum physics. Regardless of our ability make sense of it, it’s real. This experiment also suggests that quantum entanglement exists regardless of time. Meaning two bits of matter can actually be entangled, again, in time. Time as we measure it and know it, doesn’t really exist.


Theories about the Origins of Space and Time.

1. Gravity as Thermodynamics
Entropic gravity is a theory in modern physics that describes gravity as an entropic force - not a fundamental interaction mediated by a quantum field theory and a gauge particle, but a consequence of physical systems’ tendency to increase their entropy. 

2. Loop Quantum Gravity
According to Einstein, gravity is not a force – it is a property of space-time itself. Loop quantum gravity is an attempt to develop a quantum theory of gravity based directly on Einstein’s geometrical formulation. The main output of the theory is a physical picture of space where space is granular. More precisely, space can be viewed as an extremely fine fabric or network “woven” of finite loops. These networks of loops are called spin networks. The evolution of a spin network over time is called a spin foam. The predicted size of this structure is the Planck length, which is approximately 10−35 meters. According to the theory, there is no meaning to distance at scales smaller than the Planck scale. Therefore, LQG predicts that not just matter, but space itself, has an atomic structure.

3. Causal Sets
Its founding principles are that spacetime is fundamentally discrete and that spacetime events are related by a partial order. The theory postulates that the building blocks of space-time are simple mathematical points that are connected by links, with each link pointing from past to future. Such a link is a bare-bones representation of causality, meaning that an earlier point can affect a later one, but not vice versa. The resulting network is like a growing tree that gradually builds up into space-time.

4. Causal Dynamical Triangulations
The idea is to approximate the unknown fundamental constituents with tiny chunks of ordinary space-time caught up in a roiling sea of quantum fluctuations, and to follow how these chunks spontaneously glue themselves together into larger structures. The space-time building blocks were simple hyper-pyramids (four-dimensional counterparts to three-dimensional tetrahedrons) and the simulation’s gluing rules allowed them to combine freely. The result was a series of bizarre ‘universes’ that had far too many dimensions (or too few), and that folded back on themselves or broke into pieces.

5. Holography
In this model, the three-dimensional interior of the universe contains strings and black holes governed only by gravity, whereas its two-dimensional boundary contains elementary particles and fields that obey ordinary quantum laws without gravity. Hypothetical residents of the three-dimensional space would never see this boundary, because it would be infinitely far away. But that does not affect the mathematics: anything happening in the three-dimensional universe can be described equally well by equations in the two-dimensional boundary, and vice versa.

Where the different rules of physics apply:

Regular, otherwise known as Newtonian physics only applies on the average, everyday, scale. That is, objects larger than an atom at low energy, where energy in this context refers to velocity and (sometimes) temperature.

Once you step it up, increasing to high energy levels, (when velocity approaches c, the speed of light) newtonian physics no longer works due do what we call relativity, and observations or calculations need to take into account this effect usually using some form of the Lorentz factor,

gamma = [ 1 - (v^2)/(c^2) ]^(-½)

On the other hand, if you keep to a low energy system but bring the scale down to sub-atomic particles, such as electrons, things change yet again, but this time in an entirely new way. This is where Wave-Particle dualtity theory comes into play, the theory that waves (namely electromagnetic, i.e. light) are particles, and particles are wave packets. not only do you need to account for this, but you also need to take into account Heisenbergs uncertainty principle; It is impossible to know both the exact velocity and exact position of a sub atomic particle, the more certain you make one the less certain the other becomes.

Finally we come to Quantum Field Theory, which i honestly do not know anything about, at least i won’t until third year physics when i start taking courses on it.

Stephen Hawking Puts Forth New Theory On Black Holes

Notion of an ‘event horizon’, from which nothing can escape, is incompatible with quantum theory, physicist claims.

Most physicists foolhardy enough to write a paper claiming that “there are no black holes” — at least not in the sense we usually imagine — would probably be dismissed as cranks. But when the call to redefine these cosmic crunchers comes from Stephen Hawking, it’s worth taking notice. In a paper posted online, the physicist, based at the University of Cambridge, UK, and one of the creators of modern black-hole theory, does away with the notion of an event horizon, the invisible boundary thought to shroud every black hole, beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape.

In its stead, Hawking’s radical proposal is a much more benign “apparent horizon”, which only temporarily holds matter and energy prisoner before eventually releasing them, albeit in a more garbled form.

“There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory,” Hawking told Nature. Quantum theory, however, “enables energy and information to escape from a black hole”. A full explanation of the process, the physicist admits, would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature. But that is a goal that has eluded physicists for nearly a century. “The correct treatment,” Hawking says, “remains a mystery.”

Artistic impression of a black hole via NASA GSFC

Hawking posted his paper on the arXiv preprint server on 22 January 1. He titled it, whimsically, Information preservation and weather forecasting for black holes, and it has yet to pass peer review. The paper was based on a talk he gave via Skype at a meeting at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, California, in August 2013.

Fire fighting
Hawking’s new work is an attempt to solve what is known as the black-hole firewall paradox, which has been vexing physicists for almost two years, after it was discovered by theoretical physicist Joseph Polchinski of the Kavli Institute and his colleagues.

Artist credit: Andy Potts [source]

In a thought experiment, the researchers asked what would happen to an astronaut unlucky enough to fall into a black hole. Event horizons are mathematically simple consequences of Einstein’s general theory of relativity that were first pointed out by the German astronomer Karl Schwarzschild in a letter he wrote to Einstein in late 1915, less than a month after the publication of the theory. In that picture, physicists had long assumed, the astronaut would happily pass through the event horizon, unaware of his or her impending doom, before gradually being pulled inwards — stretched out along the way, like spaghetti — and eventually crushed at the singularity, the black hole’s hypothetical infinitely dense core.

But on analysing the situation in detail, Polchinski’s team came to the startling realization that the laws of quantum mechanics, which govern particles on small scales, change the situation completely. Quantum theory, they said, dictates that the event horizon must actually be transformed into a highly energetic region, or 'firewall’, that would burn the astronaut to a crisp.

This was alarming because, although the firewall obeyed quantum rules, it flouted Einstein’s general theory of relativity. According to that theory, someone in free fall should perceive the laws of physics as being identical everywhere in the Universe — whether they are falling into a black hole or floating in empty intergalactic space. As far as Einstein is concerned, the event horizon should be an unremarkable place.

Beyond the horizon
Now Hawking proposes a third, tantalizingly simple, option. Quantum mechanics and general relativity remain intact, but black holes simply do not have an event horizon to catch fire. The key to his claim is that quantum effects around the black hole cause space-time to fluctuate too wildly for a sharp boundary surface to exist.

In place of the event horizon, Hawking invokes an “apparent horizon”, a surface along which light rays attempting to rush away from the black hole’s core will be suspended. In general relativity, for an unchanging black hole, these two horizons are identical, because light trying to escape from inside a black hole can reach only as far as the event horizon and will be held there, as though stuck on a treadmill. However, the two horizons can, in principle, be distinguished. If more matter gets swallowed by the black hole, its event horizon will swell and grow larger than the apparent horizon.

Theoretical calculations predict that the Milky Way’s central black hole, called Sagittarius A*, will look like this when imaged by the Event Horizon Telescope. The false-color image shows light radiated by gas swirling around and into a black hole. The dark region in the middle is the “black hole shadow,” caused by the black hole bending light around it. [source]

Conversely, in the 1970s, Hawking also showed that black holes can slowly shrink, spewing out Hawking radiation. In that case, the event horizon would, in theory, become smaller than the apparent horizon. Hawking’s new suggestion is that the apparent horizon is the real boundary. “The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes — in the sense of regimes from which light can’t escape to infinity,” Hawking writes.

“The picture Hawking gives sounds reasonable,” says Don Page, a physicist and expert on black holes at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, who collaborated with Hawking in the 1970s. “You could say that it is radical to propose there’s no event horizon. But these are highly quantum conditions, and there’s ambiguity about what space-time even is, let alone whether there is a definite region that can be marked as an event horizon.”

Although Page accepts Hawking’s proposal that a black hole could exist without an event horizon, he questions whether that alone is enough to get past the firewall paradox. The presence of even an ephemeral apparent horizon, he cautions, could well cause the same problems as does an event horizon.

Unlike the event horizon, the apparent horizon can eventually dissolve. Page notes that Hawking is opening the door to a scenario so extreme “that anything in principle can get out of a black hole”. Although Hawking does not specify in his paper exactly how an apparent horizon would disappear, Page speculates that when it has shrunk to a certain size, at which the effects of both quantum mechanics and gravity combine, it is plausible that it could vanish. At that point, whatever was once trapped within the black hole would be released (although not in good shape).

What are black holes? [Wiki]

If Hawking is correct, there could even be no singularity at the core of the black hole. Instead, matter would be only temporarily held behind the apparent horizon, which would gradually move inward owing to the pull of the black hole, but would never quite crunch down to the centre. Information about this matter would not destroyed, but would be highly scrambled so that, as it is released through Hawking radiation, it would be in a vastly different form, making it almost impossible to work out what the swallowed objects once were.

“It would be worse than trying to reconstruct a book that you burned from its ashes,” says Page. In his paper, Hawking compares it to trying to forecast the weather ahead of time: in theory it is possible, but in practice it is too difficult to do with much accuracy.

Polchinski, however, is sceptical that black holes without an event horizon could exist in nature. The kind of violent fluctuations needed to erase it are too rare in the Universe, he says. “In Einstein’s gravity, the black-hole horizon is not so different from any other part of space,” says Polchinski. “We never see space-time fluctuate in our own neighbourhood: it is just too rare on large scales.”

Raphael Bousso, a theoretical physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former student of Hawking’s, says that this latest contribution highlights how “abhorrent” physicists find the potential existence of firewalls. However, he is also cautious about Hawking’s solution. “The idea that there are no points from which you cannot escape a black hole is in some ways an even more radical and problematic suggestion than the existence of firewalls,” he says. “But the fact that we’re still discussing such questions 40 years after Hawking’s first papers on black holes and information is testament to their enormous significance.”

Source: Nature

Stay curious! Watch PBS NOVA’s ’Monsters of the Milky Way [51:23] || Stephen Hawking’s Universe: ’Black Holes and Beyond [53:31] || Monsters of the Cosmos’ by melodysheep/Symphony of Science [3:25] || Carl Sagan explores a black hole on 'Cosmos: A Personal Voyage’ [2:22]