Limits of measurements… Limits of out self…

Photo by Spiros Kakos from Pexels

The limits of classical measurements of mechanical motion have been pushed beyond expectations in recent years. But the sensitivity that we can achieve using purely conventional means is limited. For example, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics implies the presence of “measurement backaction”: the exact knowledge of the location of a particle invariably destroys any knowledge of its momentum, and thus of predicting any of its future locations.

Backaction-evading techniques are designed specifically to ‘sidestep’ Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle by carefully controlling what information is gained and what isn’t in a measurement, e.g. by measuring only the amplitude of an oscillator and ignoring its phase. In principle, such methods have unlimited sensitivity but at the cost of learning half of the available information.

Now, in an effort to improve the sensitivity of such measurements, the lab of Tobias Kippenberg at EPFL, working with scientists at the University of Cambridge and IBM Research — Zurich, have discovered novel dynamics that place unexpected constraints on the achievable sensitivity. Published in Physical Review X, the work shows that tiny deviations in the optical frequency together with deviations in the mechanical frequency, can have grave results — even in the absence of extraneous effects — as the mechanical oscillations begin to amplify out of control, mimicking the physics of what is called a “degenerate parametric oscillator.” (1)

The problem of measurement. An unsolvable problem. And yet, within our mania to understand everything we have missed that every unsolvable problem points only to the obvious: that the problem itself is wrong!

Trying to measure things. In a cosmos which cannot be measured.

Trying to observe things. In a cosmos not meant to be observed.

Trying to understand. In a cosmos which was never meant to be understood.

Destroyers of the world.

Trying to push through a veil we ourselves have set up.

We are the cosmos.

There is no cosmos.

Trying to understand our self. Without accepting our self.

Can’t you see?

There is no need to learn how to swim.

You are already deep in the water…

Measuring laws…

Photo by Spiros Kakos from Pexels

One of the fundamental physical constants, the ‘weak axial vector coupling constant’ (gA), has now been measured with very high precision for the first time. It is needed to explain nuclear fusion in the sun, to understand the formation of elements shortly after the Big Bang, or to understand important experiments in particle physics. With the help of sophisticated neutron experiments, the value of gA has now been determined with an accuracy of 0.04%. (1)

Trying to measure constants.

To formulate models.

Which need more constants.

Which we then have to measure.

Until we measure everything.

Until we have defined all constants.

What a stable world that would be.

Perfectly defined.

Perfectly modeled.

It is raining.

Let’s find shelter.

Come on.

And in that stable world.

A kid.

And in the fierce rain.

Takes a step forward.

Into the rain.

Laughing!

Ruining everything!

Measuring the cosmos… Ghosts and numbers…

A groundbreaking experiment in physics has for the first time provided a precise measurement of a force between electrons and protons called the weak nuclear force. The value 0.0719 (give or take 0.0045) won’t mean much to most of us, but the way they did it makes way for some exciting possibilities for pushing physics beyond the scope of the Standard Model. (1)

We want to measure things in order to believe them. But it is only the truly blessed who believe things without measuring them.

The cosmos is not in numbers.

The essence of the cosmos lies in the irrationality of the numbers’ existence itself. Nothing in the universe is measurable, besides the things which do not belong in it. Only ghosts need tangible “data” for them to exist. Everything else just Is…

Look at π. It does not exist.

And yet, it governs everything…

A man draws circles on the ground.

He will never be able to measure its circumference.

And yet… Here it is…

(the circle, not the man)

Moon bright…

Scientists put the Moon to work daily as a calibration source for space-based cameras that use the brightness and colors of sunlight reflecting off our planet to track weather patterns, trends in crop health, the locations of harmful algal blooms in oceans and much more. The information sent from Earth-facing imagers allows researchers to predict famines and floods and can help communities plan emergency response and disaster relief.

To make sure that one satellite camera’s “green” isn’t another’s “yellow,” each camera is calibrated – in space – against a common source. The Moon makes a convenient target because, unlike Earth, it has no atmosphere and its surface changes very little.

The trouble is that, for all the songs written about the light of the silvery Moon, it’s still not understood exactly how bright the Moon’s reflected light is, at all times and from all angles. Today’s best measurements allow researchers to calculate the Moon’s brightness with uncertainties of a few percent — not quite good enough for the most sensitive measurement needs, says NIST’s Stephen Maxwell. To make up for these shortcomings, scientists have developed complicated workarounds. For example, they must periodically check the accuracy of their satellite images by making the same measurements multiple ways — from space, from the air and from the ground — simultaneously.

Or, if they want to compare images taken at different times by different satellites, they have to ensure that there is some overlap during their time in space so that the imagers have the chance to measure the same part of the planet at roughly the same time. But what happens if a research team can’t get a new camera into space before an old one is retired? “You get what’s called a data gap, and you lose the ability to stitch together measurements from different satellites to determine long-term trends,” Maxwell says.

Really knowing how bright the Moon is – with uncertainties of much less than 1 percent — would reduce the need for these logistically challenging solutions and ultimately save money.

So NIST is setting out to take new measurements of the Moon’s brightness. Researchers hope they will be the best measurements to date. (1)

We want to accurately measure the brightness of the Moon. In order to perform other measurements based on that measurements. And the measurement of the telescope that will be used for the measurements of the brightness of the moon will again need to be calibrated vis-a-vis other measurements.

But what is the initial measure of all measurements? What is the measurement which gave meaning to other measurements in the first place?

Space. Monads. Light. Time. Darkness.

Tiny specks of (a priori) knowledge shaping our minds…

We know we can measure.

Because of something that is immeasurable…

The moon is bright.

Shining tonight.

I stroll on my own.

And still, I feel not alone…

Exit mobile version
%%footer%%